From: Stephen Matheson <matheson@helix.mgh.harvard.edu>
> The word is libel, and you clearly do not know what either of your
> accusatory terms mean. If you did, you would realize the absurdity
> of accusing Fischer of libel, and you would be embarrassed by the
> accusation of slander. Try this: look up the words in a
> dictionary. Slander, by definition, is "uttered", i.e., oral.
> Libel, by definition, is defamatory. Harsh criticism,
> like it or not, is not and has never been considered libel.
The accusation that the scientists of CRS are "anti-science" is defamatory.
Slander can be oral or written.
> Many people, myself included, consider the above groups to be
> at least partly anti-science based on specific behaviors and
> philosophical positions they have exhibited. Behaviors in question
> include deliberate misuse of facts in the course of attempting to
> discredit key scientific findings; philosophies in question
> include opportunistic commitments to non-uniformitarianism.
> To refer to a movement that is characterized by such flaws
> as 'anti-science' is the expression of an opinion that is
> highly critical but in no way defamatory.
Creationists start with the assumptions of Creation and Flood Catastrophism.
Evolutionists start with the assumption of Naturalism/materialism. The
differences in assumptions causes the misunderstandings which you listed
above. Science
is just the methodology by which nature is studied. Science can be used
within either philosophy.
Creationists consider Evolutionism to be far more flawed than creationism.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 21:47:34 EST