Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site talcott.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!talcott!gjk From: gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: Re: SOR Pamphlet #4 Message-ID: <205@talcott.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Jan-85 11:38:30 EST Article-I.D.: talcott.205 Posted: Fri Jan 4 11:38:30 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 7-Jan-85 02:47:55 EST References: <961@utastro.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Harvard Lines: 42 In response to Bill Jefferys and others: Awhile back I posted a response to SOR Pamphlet #4, which, although perhaps not as well-phrased as Mr. Jefferys' reply, had one point in it which I feel that Bill underemphasized. And that is that Mr. Miller is a dishonest man. After I posted my article, one or two people sent (or posted) replies to the effect of, "Greg, where have you been? Of course creationists misquote their sources!" I know that this is common among the religious right, but that does not make it any less crooked. You see, Mr. Miller has already read the arguments that Bill Jefferys posted, because Mr. Miller quoted sources *which contain those arguments*. This means the he knows that his arguments are bogus. And he doesn't care. You see, the creationist strategy is not to prove creationism scientific. They know that they can't do that. And it's not to prove evolution scientifically unsound. The know that they can't do that either. No, the creationist strategy is to attempt to debate evolution for long enough that it seems questionable. And as anybody who has been on a debating team knows, the way to hold your own in a debate is to present a hundred short, bogus arguments. Thus, when Bill posts a 300-line reply to Arthur Ray Miller, he is doing Mr. Miller a favor: he is fueling discussion. I maintain that this is not the correct approach. The correct approach, rather, is to point out the first two or three distortions/half-quotes/misquotes, and then say, "Your methods are dishonest, and therefore your arguments are not worthy of being under discussion." One might suggest at this point that Mr. Miller's pamphlets are not worthy of any reply at all. Unfortunately, some sort a reply is necessary, because no reply at all satisfies the creationists' other hope: that they will be able to preach what they wish without any intervention from scientists at all. If this happened, then at least some laymen/politicians might take what they say at face value, which would fulfill their main goal: political power. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk " " -Charlie Chaplin, for IBM