> Let [ID] first prove itself that it deserves a place in academia.
> Presently ID has nothing to add to science. Why should they be
> permitted ? Should it not succeed on its own merrits? If ID has
> some merrits then science cannot ignore it. So far it has not been
> too succesful.
If it is not "permitted", how can it "prove itself"? If it is not
allowed a place in academia, how can it demonstrate its relevance and
value to science?
Who says what can be permitted and what can not? There IS a
scientific establishment - and it does have an influence. What are
the tenets of this establishment? Many of us think that the
opposition to ID is ideological rather than scientific.<<<
Hi David,
I do get a bit tired of the constant claim by Christian apologists that
there is some sort of 'establishment' that is out to sink any and all
articles and arguments advanced by anyone who dares disagree with the
establishment. It simply isn't so. This claim sounds whiny and like
sour grapes. It also sound a bit paranoid. Often it is a complaint that
hides sloppy work or work outside of one's area of expertise (note I
didn't say outside of one's degree field). If Christians are really
going to deal with the issues, it is time to grow up, and answer to
objectiions that caused an article or idea to be rejected. To always
claim that the fault is the other guy's is childish. Often the fault is
our own. We either didn't communicate well, didn't have enough evidence
or made errors that a freshman in a field wouldn't make.
I would point you to the gang of 6 article in the 1994 International
conference on Creationism. You criticized their article because their
model required that Cambrian strata be found offshore along the east
coast of North America. It has never been found and there is good
evidence that it doesn't exist. Should an article like that be published
in a standard science journal when very simple observational data
refutes their premise? And they admit that they can't handle the heat
problem. At what point does rejection of such an article become
persecution? Do we Christians have a right to publish junk? I don't
think so.
I would point to Art Chadwick who certainly doesn't hold to the standard
view of geology yet he regularly presents papers and publishes papers in
geology. I don't see people rejecting his articles because of his
beliefs. If he does something sloppy, it deserves to be rejected. But
then if any of us do something sloppy it deserves to be rejected.
Lest one say that I am part of this 'establishment,' I would like to
point out that I ran into difficulties getting my ideas published by the
Christian press. For several years there was nowhere I could find that
would publish anything written about my views. I perservered and
finally got my articles published. It was frustrating during that time
but eventually, I was able to overcome the objections of the Christian
and theological editors and get things published.
-- glennFoundation, Fall and FloodAdam, Apes and Anthropologyhttp://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm