miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/03/84)
This whole discussion concerning the education of creationists' children is absurd. It is based upon a false premise: that creationists do not want their children to hear about evolution. On the contrary, creationists want their children to hear *both sides*, feeling that students are intelligent enough to make up their own minds in favor of which model fits the scientific facts better. Furthermore, as creationists obviously realize, evolutionary philosophy dominates our society. It would be stupid for creationists not to want to prepare their children for future conficts which must inevitably arise. To do that, one must know one's opponent. I have challenged Martin (et al.) to document his slander concerning creation- ists in net.origins (where this discussion belongs). He is free to use any published matterial from the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation Research Society, the Bible Science Association, or Students for Origins Research. Since he has not done so, we can only conclude that his paranoid fear springs from his own mind, and has no basis in reality. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/05/84)
================
This whole discussion concerning the education of creationists' children is
absurd. It is based upon a false premise: that creationists do not want their
children to hear about evolution. On the contrary, creationists want their
children to hear *both sides*, feeling that students are intelligent enough
to make up their own minds in favor of which model fits the scientific facts
better. Furthermore, as creationists obviously realize, evolutionary
philosophy dominates our society. It would be stupid for creationists not to
want to prepare their children for future conficts which must inevitably arise.
To do that, one must know one's opponent.
I have challenged Martin (et al.) to document his slander concerning creation-
ists in net.origins (where this discussion belongs). He is free to use any
published matterial from the Institute for Creation Research, the Creation
Research Society, the Bible Science Association, or Students for Origins
Research. Since he has not done so, we can only conclude that his paranoid
fear springs from his own mind, and has no basis in reality.
A. Ray Miller
================
(a) I NEVER suggested that creationists didn't want their children
to learn about evolution, so I suggest that Miller is perhaps using
the same standards of truth in argument that he uses in his newsletters
in net.origins (where this debate does NOT belong).
(b) I have as yet seen no challenge by Miller in net.origins (which
I do read), and so I couldn't have responded even if I wanted to.
The question of public education, labelled "of creationist's children"
is a political one, and has nothing to do with the creation-evolution
debate. It is essentially the question raised by C.P.Snow, about
two cultures. I think we all agree that children should be exposed
to the great literary and artistic heritage of Civilization (though
too few get much exposure). My point was that they should also be
exposed to enough basic physics and other sciences that they would
not make the kinds of arguments that some creationists on net.origins
have been making. Creationism is not served by such ignorance any
more than is science. As for whether creationists all want their
children taught about evolution, I defer to Miller on this point,
and substitute "fundamentalists" for "creationists."
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtmiller@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/09/84)
Martin Taylor writes: >(a) I NEVER suggested that creationists didn't want their children >to learn about evolution, so I suggest that Miller is perhaps using >the same standards of truth in argument that he uses in his newsletters >in net.origin Zat right? Well, golly, I just happened to have saved the following from net.origins, posted by one Martin Taylor: >I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's >education might be taken from creationists > ... >The crimes that are committed in the name of religion are many, but >among the worst must be included refusing a child the nutrition it >requires for mental growth. Would you leave a child with parents >who starve it for food? No? Why then would you leave it with parents >who starve it for mental food? Malnutrition of the brain has the same >general effects in both cases. Gee, Martin, I don't know how else to take what you wrote than to falsely claim creationists don't want their children to learn about evolution. So, yes, I do use the same standard of truth, one which is correct. Now I suppose I could have misunderstood you. If so, perhaps you will be so kind as to interpret said nonsense on "refusing a child the nutrition" and "malnutrition of the brain"? >(b) I have as yet seen no challenge by Miller in net.origins (which >I do read), and so I couldn't have responded even if I wanted to. I can't do much about that, as I have posted two articles on the subject over there. If they didn't get to all machines, then it is beyond my control. At any rate, I intend to confine my replies to that group, as net.politics is too crowded to discuss the implications of a subject already covered by its own group. So Martin, you are free to make any sort of silly claims you wish about creationists in this group; the truth will be contained elsewhere. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/12/84)
> > Martin Taylor writes: > >(a) I NEVER suggested that creationists didn't want their children > >to learn about evolution, so I suggest that Miller is perhaps using > >the same standards of truth in argument that he uses in his newsletters > >in net.origin > > Zat right? Well, golly, I just happened to have saved the following from > net.origins, posted by one Martin Taylor: > > >I originally suggested that the right to determine their children's > >education might be taken from creationists > > ... > >The crimes that are committed in the name of religion are many, but > >among the worst must be included refusing a child the nutrition it > >requires for mental growth. Would you leave a child with parents > >who starve it for food? No? Why then would you leave it with parents > >who starve it for mental food? Malnutrition of the brain has the same > >general effects in both cases. > > Gee, Martin, I don't know how else to take what you wrote than to falsely > claim creationists don't want their children to learn about evolution. > So, yes, I do use the same standard of truth, one which is correct. Now I > suppose I could have misunderstood you. If so, perhaps you will be so kind > as to interpret said nonsense on "refusing a child the nutrition" and > "malnutrition of the brain"? I have replied to Miller by mail as follows: (1) Re-read your own quote. (2) I retracted "creationists" and substituted "fundamentalists" in response to your first flame. In fact, I think "fundamentalists" is more correct, although there is some overlap between the two groups. (3) My original posting, from which you extracted the selection, dealt with the teaching of basic science, and as far as I remember did not even mention evolution (though I may be wrong on that; it certainly wasn't in connection with the mental deprivation part of the posting.) (4) What has this argument got to do with whether creation or evolution better fits the facts of the world? That's what belongs in net.origins, not the political questions of who gets what kind of education. ====== The net deserves better. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt