>If all they do is talk about philosophical concepts, I have no problem with
>that, but the description of the lecture series suggests that they will also
>try to argue that the validity of the science that biologists do is
>questionable because the philosophy they base their science on is
>questionable. If they were actual working biologists they would know
>better, because they would see for themselves that the validity of any
>science is based on the data collected, not some nebulous philosophy that no
>scientist is taught in any event.
>
>By pretending that they do not need to have any training or experience in
>biology in order to be able to critique biological data or theories, they
>misrepresent themselves to the public and alienate those in the scientific
>community they wish to influence. By claiming that biologists are too
>biased to understand their own work, and that only outsiders like themselves
>can provide that understanding, they display their arrogance as well. It's
>as simple as that.
Kevin, you can sleep tonight. The scientists at MIT and Tufts will be
capapble of determining whether the things Dembski and Nelson say are good
science. What are you worried about? If they are not speaking good
science, they will be trashed. If they are, what is your concern? Have a
good day.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu