Chuck posted this statement:
"In the wake of the [Vista School Board] vote, American Civil Liberties
Union representatives stated that they are considering a lawsuit and will
sue immediately should any Vista teacher begin teaching biblical
creationism in the classroom."
Burgy responded with:
<<1. The "public statement" is not by the ACLU, but by a third party.
<<2. The statement refers to "Biblical Creationism," not "Creationism."
<<3. Statement #2 generalizes from a specific to the general.
I would note, first, that the "third parties" quoted are REPRESENTATIVES of
the ACLU, and thus presumably speak for it.
Second, to my knowledge the ACLU makes no distinction between "Creationism,"
"Biblical Creationism" or "Scientific Creationism." If there are any such
distinctions in their position papers or public pronouncements, it would be
interesting to hear about it. But I don't believe they are there.
Thus Chuck is, it seems to me, doing what one does normally in the real
world--taking an organization at its word and drawing a rational conclusion
about it.
Without slicing and dicing to the point that linguistic coherence becomes a
bad dream, what part of that is so hard to understand?
Jim