>> I do not deny that Gish makes "questionable statements", but that is
>> not what is asserted. What is asserted is that he is "dishonest".
>> Now that requires that the accuser knows somehow that Gish
>> deliberately says or writes something as true that he knows to be
>> false.
Without knowing what a person is really thinking, it's usually difficult
to know whether someone is being deliberately dishonest. Gish, for
example, may have believed in his argument about frog proteins, which
means by Stephen's criteria, that he is not dishonest. In the document
referred to by Bill and posted by Brian(?), is the following paragraph:
Gish also attended the conference, and I asked him about the proteins
in the presence of several creationists. Gish tried mightily to evade
and to obfuscate, but I was firm. Doolittle provided sequence data for
human and chimpanzee proteins; Gish could do the same - *if* his
alleged chicken and bullfrog proteins really exist. Gish insisted that
they exist and promised to send me the sequences. Skeptically, I asked
him pointblank: "Will that be before hell freezes over?" He assured me
that it would. After two-and- one-half years, I still have neither
sequence data nor a report of frost in Hades.
(from http://rumba.ics.uci.edu/faqs/creationist-dishonesty.html)
Note that Gish *insisted that the gene sequences existed*. This is a
separate issue from what Gish actually believes about the biochemical
issues. I see no way to interpret this except as *deliberate
dishonesty*; Gish seemed willing to say whatever he thought would get
him out of a tight spot.
This FAQ mentions the involvement of Kevin Wirth, who has posted a
couple of times. Kevin apparently tried to get Gish to provide
evidence, with no success. If Kevin is still around, it would be nice
to know what he has to say about this.
There is a similar example in the another file,
http://rumba.ics.uci.edu/faqs/icr-whoppers.html. This is from an
account of a debate between Ken Saladin and Gish:
So I entered our debate this year prepared to repay him for his
sarcasm, armed with a microcassette onto which I had dubbed the
seminal portions of the Gish-Edwords and Gish-Schwimmer debates. I
played Gish's twofold denial [that ICR sponsored expeditions to look
for Noah's Ark] over the PA system, then showed slides of several
_Acts & Facts_ accounts of these expeditions, culminating with an
unequivocal affirmation of sponsorship in the November 1986 issue. In
his rebuttal, Gish seemed a bit flustered and claimed he couldn't hear
the tape I played, but notwithstanding the slides I had just shown, he
stood up and denied sponsorship once again. Auburn is a university
with a conspicuous contingent of faculty creationists, but perhaps
because of statements like this, Gish seemed to enjoy little
credibility or support that evening. I was told several of his
supporters got up and walked out during his presentation, and with
statements like this it was little wonder why.
Stephen, any comment?
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort Collins, COJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765