Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joe Meert · 06-24-2003, 12:17 PM

I've been involved in an ongoing dispute with Walt Brown regarding his 'debate' proposition. I won't repeat it here, but those who are interested can find a description at
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm

Nothing much has happened since Walt last refused my debate, but I received the following unsolicited e-mail yesterday. The attorney will be speaking with Walt Brown and has given me permission to post this letter as long as I also post Walt Brown's response (which I will do in a few days after it is sent to me).

Quote:

Dr. Meert & Dr. Brown/Peggy Note: Peggy is Walt's secretary:

I have written with some thoughts on the debate feud chronicled at Dr. Meert's site, and to an extent at Dr. Brown's site, CreationScience.com. (This email also keeps the promise I made Peggy that I would respond to Dr. Brown's position in submissions to both sides. Also, as a courtesy to Dr. Meert, I have attached the PDF file that Peggy sent me earlier today.)

As a lawyer who negotiates, writes, and litigates contracts for a living, I believe that neither Dr. Meert nor Dr. Brown has read the debate agreement exactly right. However, on the whole, Dr. Meert's reading seems much closer to correct (i.e., his misreading is minor), and Dr. Brown's reading -- particularly on the "modification" clause near the end -- seems (at best) hyper-technical and (at worst) materially and even deliberately wrong.

Dr. Brown argues that the "modification" clause applies only to "procedures," and that Dr. Meert's proposal does not deal with "procedures" -- meaning, in a nutshell, that r. Meert has not truly agreed to Dr. Brown's terms for debate. That, to use lawyer speak, is hogwash. While the modification clause does refer to "procedures," the term is not self-defining, nor is it defined in the agreement -- so what exactly the word means or includes must be determined in view of the entire document. When read as part of the agreement as a whole (and consistent with reported court decisions), "procedures" seems clearly to embrace all acts and powers of the editor listed in paragraph 8 -- including the power to "[m]ake whatever rulings will help accomplish paragraph 2 above." In other words, the editor has contractual authority to decide anything -- whether concerning submission lengths, formats, content, or anything else within the debate relationship -- if it makes the debate better or more helpful to its audience. If "procedures" does not include such items, then what exactly
does the word mean? The agreement gives no clue. Against this backdrop --
and using common sense -- Dr. Meert's proposal seems easily to fall within the scope of "procedures" as the term is used in the modification clause.

On a related point, I disagree with Dr. Brown's claim that Dr. Meert has made inclusion of religion a mandatory condition of participation in the debate. To the contrary, Dr. Meert says at http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/walt_brown.htm that he "will abide by the independent judges [sic] ruling (even if it goes against me) and will debate Walt in writing or in public at any time.")

More important, perhaps, is a different but related principle: Even if Dr. Brown's reading of "procedures" is correct, that does not free him from the separate obligation to proceed with selection of an editor under paragraph 5 -- after which Dr. Meert's proposed modification would be submitted to and decided by that editor. Stated differently, once Dr. Meert signed the contract (with or without a proposal attached), Dr. Brown had no choice but to proceed with selection of an editor -- which editor would then have sole power to decide whether Dr. Meert's proposal is proper or should be rejected. To be blunt, nothing in the agreement gives Dr. Brown any power either (a) to decide that Dr. Meert's proposal does not concern "procedures," and therefore does not fall within the modification clause, or
(b) then to do nothing based on that determination, and thus kill the debate before it begins. By refusing to act in any way on Dr. Meert's agreement, Dr. Brown is effectively serving as judge and jury, as well as advocate -- which, of course, makes the "debate" inherently unfair as well as impossible. If Dr. Brown will pounce on "procedures" to avoid appointment of the editor in this case, what word will provide his next exit?

I am not an evolutionist -- to the contrary, I am a Bible-believing, creationist Christian who has attended and enjoyed Dr. Brown's seminar, and who teaches a Bible class every week at my church. In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence, is embarassed by faulty logic and argument, and cringes whenever a creation science proponent appears to avoid instead of welcome direct engagement with an opponent. In this instance, Dr. Brown has disappointed me, because his misinterpretation
and/or hyper-elevation of the term "procedures" looks like evasion. Of
course, I might be entirely wrong, and I would welcome correction.

Many thanks for the opportunity to give my thoughts. Please use them however you wish.

Matthew Foster
McMains Foster & Morse, P.C.
9000 Guaranty Building
20 North Meridian Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Cheers

Joe Meert

Minnesota · 06-24-2003, 02:38 PM

Kind of makes a one want to go to Arizona and kick the guy in the ass for a good hour or so, or maybe just punch his lights out for being such a lying, unmitigated turd.

RBH · 06-24-2003, 10:46 PM

Minnesota wrote

Quote:

Kind of makes a one want to go to Arizona and kick the guy in the ass for a good hour or so, or maybe just punch his lights out for being such a lying, unmitigated turd.

I grew up in Minnesota, and I notice that like all true Minnesotans, you're real reluctant to say directly what you really mean. Why don't you just spit it out instead of pussyfooting around it?

RBH

enigma555 · 06-25-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

In addition, however, I am a Vanderbilt-educated, naturally skeptical lawyer who wants creation science claims to be backed up by evidence

Uh huh... good luck

lpetrich · 06-29-2003, 06:09 AM

Seems to me that civility has done some good for Joe Meert -- it has impressed at least one would-be opponent.

And I've taken the time to rebut Walt Brown's "20 Questions for Evolutionists"; the rebuttals are at least as long as the questions themselves.

For example, Walt Brown asks about some ancestral cell "How could that first cell reproduce?"

One wonders how much microbiology he knows, because the answer is almost absurdly simple: it multiplied by dividing, as present-day cells do most of the time.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-24-2003, 02:38 PM	#2
Minnesota Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 172	Kind of makes a one want to go to Arizona and kick the guy in the ass for a good hour or so, or maybe just punch his lights out for being such a lying, unmitigated turd.

06-29-2003, 06:09 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Seems to me that civility has done some good for Joe Meert -- it has impressed at least one would-be opponent. And I've taken the time to rebut Walt Brown's "20 Questions for Evolutionists"; the rebuttals are at least as long as the questions themselves. For example, Walt Brown asks about some ancestral cell "How could that first cell reproduce?" One wonders how much microbiology he knows, because the answer is almost absurdly simple: it multiplied by dividing, as present-day cells do most of the time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.