Re: Dembski's "Explaining Specified Complexity"

MikeBGene@aol.com
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:40:50 EDT

Mike: Science can afford to be so provisional because, for the most
part, it doesn't deal with important issues.

Pim: That of course depends on how you define 'important issues'.
Science surely has affected some very important issues.

Mike: Like what?

Pim: Health for instance. Exploration of the unknown.

Since not all science deals with health, for example,
is this science unimportant?

But let's see. I think questions about who we are, why
we exist, and right and wrong are more important.
You think questions about our health and exploring
the unknown are more important. Fine. Then answer
my question this time. Surely, much progress in
health could be made by experimenting on the
mentally ill, criminals, the homeless, etc. We'd
also explore lots of unknowns instead of having
to extrapolate from cells and animals. If what you say
is really important, why don't we? Could it be there
are things more important than health and exploring
the unknown? Sure.

Mike