On Mon, 8 Jan 96 16:22:24 MST you wrote:
JF>I consider Gish totally untrustworthy, even on something that
>appears relevant to his expertise in biochemistry (although I suspect
>that the question of what molecules we could digest has more to do
>with physiology than biochemistry).
SJ>...Although I am not a YEC, and I do not deny that some members of
>the ICR may be "untrustworthy", I have seen no evidence that its
>leaders (eg. Gish and Morris) are dishonest. That is, that they
>deliberately try to mislead others by making statements as true that
>they really know are false.
JF>I will get back to you about your private email, with some
>documentation (which, naturally, means it will take me a little
>time). Read "untrustworthy" as synonymous with "unreliable", rather
>than "intentionally dishonest". I consider Gish's argumentation so
>shoddy (see my FAQ for reasons) that I could not accept anything he
>says without further documentation.
Sorry Jim, but in private email to me you wrote to me words to the
effect that the ICR was intentionally dishonest. (Ethics prevents me
from posting your exact words which were stronger than that). Now you
are toning it down to mean just "unreliable" and not "intentionally
dishonest"?
I agree that Gish's argumentation is "shoddy" sometimes, so you
posting evidience of that is not news, and you could save your time.
What I would like to see substantiated publicly on the Reflector (not
privately to me) is the frequent claim by evolutionists that the ICR
leaders (e.g Morris, Gish, Lubenow and Parker) are "dishonest", ie.
that they wilfully claim things to be true that they know to be false.
Regards.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------