From: Bertvan@aol.com
Hello, Bertvan. Your questions weren't directed to me, but I'll answer them
anyway.
[snip]
>As to whether they consulted a creationist organization, that should have
no
>relevance to what they DID.
It speaks about their motivation, which is important for a public body,
where conflicts of interest may occur.
>I can't believe you advocate questioning the credibility of any agency
which
>consults or associates with a religious organization!!
I would certainly question the judgement of a public body which consults a
religious organization on a matter of science education.
>Do you consider all
>who advocate ID to be "creationists"? And question the credibility of
anyone
>who entertains the entertains the possibility of ID and discusses ID or
>irreducible complexity in a non confrontational manner? I'm not accusing
>you of anything, I'm asking.
I would question the credibility of a person to speak authoritatively on
this subject if that person accepts the flawed arguments for ID that I've
seen (i.e. those of Behe and Dembski), particularly if that person has a
strong religious motivation (as Behe and Dembski do).
>P.S. Did you ever conduct that pole to see how many biologists at your
>university consider themselves materialists?
If you're referring to the poll that I suggested, then you've completely
changed the subject. I wrote: "I wanted to know whether most professional
biologists in your university would agree that those who are characterized
by Gould and Eldredge as "ultra-Darwinians" are "a very narrow set of
neo-Darwinists". I would still be interested in knowing how some typical
biologists would answer this question. Unfortunately, I don't have any
biologists available to ask for myself!
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 06:25:19 EST