Re: [Bulk] Re: The Pseudo-Science Amicus Brief in Kitzmiller

janice matchett wrote:

> At 01:45 PM 10/5/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
>> janice matchett wrote:
>>
>>> At 02:45 AM 10/5/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>>
>>> Tim Sandefur has written about the recent Amicus brief filed by 85
>>> scientists in the Kitzmiller case. The brief can be read here
>>> http://scit.us/kitz/kitz-dibrief.pdf
>>> <http://scit.us/kitz/kitz-dibrief.pdf%A0%A0%A0> I have read the
>>> brief and am appalled by the many errors in the brief. ..." [snip]
>>>
>>> ~ Pim
>>>
>>> ### If serious scientists hope to regain credibility it would be in
>>> their best interest to distance themselves from people who are
>>> promoted by *infidels.org* and other web sites promoting atheistic
>>> religious philosophies.
>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1496881/posts?page=96#96
>>
>>
>> I assume you similarly consider promoting religious philosophies of
>> any kind to be a reason to distantiate oneself from the arguments
>> presented? Janice, your 'arguments' are self defeating and miss the
>> point.
>> In Christ
>> Pim
>
>
> #2#2# The complaint of serious scientists is that most people
> perceive them to be promoting atheism. That perception is reinforced
> when people notice who they are using as spokespeople in their
> defense. That's just the way it is. Sorry.
>
In other words, a strawman based on 'perception'. So serious scientists
can still rely on people who are promoted by infidels.org as long as
they make it clear that the argument is not based on a premise of
atheism which, as most people know, is a conclusion which cannot be
reached based on science.
Serious scientists understand this. But I see you are unwilling to take
your "logic" to its fullest extent.
Too bad.
Received on Wed Oct 5 14:26:07 2005