At 07:59 PM 3/17/00 -0500, Bertvan wrote:
[...]
>Bertvan; (in regard to Millers criticism of the Kansas school board)
> >>Rather than state his
> >>specific objections, he uses words such as "ghost written", "terrible",
> >>"lack of understanding of the nature of science" (Miller's personal
> >>understanding, I presume), "egregious", "errors of fact",
> "misrepresentation
> >>,"things are a mess", and "an embarrassment to Christians". I believe Ken
> >>Miller is committed to a materialist explanation of life. (His privilege)
> >.>Nevertheless, if Miller had voiced specific examples of these "errors of
> >>fact", I would have tried to give them my unbiased consideration.
> >>Bertvan
>
>
>Brain:
> >Here is an example of what I was talking about. You jump to a conclusion
> >without evidence. Why? Is it because you are trying to "explain" his
> >opposition in terms of his commitment to materialism. This is classical
> >circumstantial _ad-hominem_.
>
>Bertvan:
>What conclusion did I jump to? I merely stated I can not judge Miller's
>criticisms of the Kansas school board unless he (or you) are more specific
>than "things are a mess".
I inserted my comment above immediately after you wrote "I believe Ken
Miller is committed to a materialist explanation of life. (His privilege)",
thus making the conclusion that I was referring to obvious. For some
reason you removed my statement from its original location and placed
it after your statement about "specific examples". Can you explain to
me why you did this? I don't believe I really care to continue this
conversation if I cannot trust you not to alter my responses.
>Brian:
> >Did you consider the possibility that there is documentation for what Miller
> >wrote? Again, I'm surprised that these things seem new to you.
>
>Bertvan:
>Sure I consider it. If you or he present such documentation, I'll try to
>give it unbiased consideration. So far I've seen nothing from Miller but
>terms such as "things are a mess". You regard it an ad-hominem attack for me
>to state that is all I've seen? I admit I'm not likely expend much energy
>seeking out opinions and "documentations" by people with whom I disagree. I
>don't spend much time looking for stuff written by Young Earth Creationists.
>But if something is presented to me I try to consider it without bias.
Everything has been documented in great detail. To say that they consulted a
creationist organization doesn't do justice to the deviousness of the
subcommittee.
Its quite amazing. The place to start is the minutes of the August 11
meeting of
the school board. I'll leave you to your own investigations since, as I
said above,
I do not feel like continuing this discussion.
>Bertvan
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 18 2000 - 23:05:31 EST