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