From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Creationism and its debunking in Australia
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:14:00 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <17AUG199220460545@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>, lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes...
>I can elaborate.  The article in _Creation/Evolution_ criticizing Plimer's
>tactics was "How Not to Argue with Creationists," which I authored.  I will
>be happy to send copies through email to anyone interested.

I should add to this that the latest issue of _Creation/Evolution_ (issue
30, which I just received yesterday) contains the following letter to the
editor:

   How Not to Argue with Evolutionists?
   "How Not to Argue with Creationists" by Jim Lippard (Issue 29, pp. 9-21,
   1992) is strongly critical of two Australian anticreationists, Ian
   Plimer and Barry Price.  [Editor] John Cole defends Lippard as showing
   "our openness to self-criticism" [in his introduction].  But Lippard
   is not criticizing himself, he is criticizing somebody else.  Furthermore,
   there is no need for Lippard's article; the Australian Creation Science
   Foundation has attacked Plimer and Price at length in its publication,
   "Response to Deception," referenced and quoted by Lippard.  Why should
   Creation/Evolution join forces with creationists?  Duane Gish, who is
   defended by Lippard, is an expert at taking care of himself (Jukes,
   Nature 305:398, 1984).
      Lippard seems insensitive to the problem of "cultural imperialism,"
   meaning the tendency to take on the uninvited role of passing judgment
   on disputes in other countries.  As a former resident of Canada, I
   know how strongly interference by the USA is resented by Canadians.
   I consider Lippard's intrusion into the Australian scene to belabor
   Plimer and Price to be an embarrassment.  Inconsistently, Lippard is
   supportive of Michael Denton, an Australian anti-evolutionist whose
   book Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, a favorite of creationists, is of
   low quality.  Denton can't even construct phylogenetic trees (Jukes,
   Basis 10:1, 1991, Bay Area Skeptics).
      Lippard's article was ill-advised and divisive.

      Thomas H. Jukes
      Dept. of Integrative Biology
      University of California-Berkeley

Jukes and I hashed out all of these same points in correspondence
shortly after my article was published, but my letters to him seem to
have had no effect.  There are a few misrepresentations above.  I do
not support Denton, except against misrepresentation of his views by
both Plimer and Gish.  Likewise I do not defend Gish except against
gross misrepresentations of his statements and unsubstantiated accusations
of sexual impropriety.
   It is true that the creationists have already made most of the same
points I did in my article, but I take that as all the more reason that
anti-creationists should be aware of them.  There is certainly the danger
that my article will be used by creationists to bash their opponents, but
historically so is everything published on evolution (e.g., everything
Stephen Jay Gould writes about punctuated equilibrium).  I don't think
that danger is sufficient to preclude criticism of the misrepresentations
of Plimer and Price.
   I think Jukes' "self-criticism" argument is disingenuous.  His "cultural
imperialism" argument has a flip-side, cultural relativism, which I reject.
I do not think the mere fact that Plimer and Price reside in a country
different from my own disqualifies me from offering criticism of their
actions.  In order for Jukes' argument to work, he should provide some
specific reasons based on specific cultural differences as to why my
criticisms are inappropriate.

Jim Lippard              Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy      Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Newsgroups: talk.origins