From: Stephen E. Jones <sejones@iinet.net.au>
>If Chris and his ilk *really* thought ID was like "numerology" or
>"astrology", they wouldn't need to bluster on with ad hominems, but would
>be wasting no time inviting ID to lay out its case on a public level
playing
>field (e.g. in mainstream scientific journals), so ID could be refuted fair
>and square.
>
>But the more the materialists avoid such a fair contest of ideas, the more
>they will give the public (including the less committed of their own
>supporters) the impression that deep down they are afraid that ID would
>win!
This is fairly typical of Stephen's disinformation. Evolutionists are not
avoiding a fair contest of ideas. (Unless you're referring to the fact that
the irrational arguments of IDers are at a disadvantage when they come up
against the rational arguments of evolutionists.) No-one is censoring the ID
movement. ID proponents can and do lay out their case in public, and it
*has* been refuted fair and square.
The issue is not whether IDers should be allowed to state their case, but
whether that case should be treated as a scientific one (when it isn't). You
never address the issue of why ID should be considered science but
numerology and and astrology shouldn't (or maybe you think they should?).
And, of course, many if not most of those who argue for evolution are not
"materialists" anyway. By using such terms, you're probably just
antogonizing the theistic evolutionists present.
I'm often struck by the similiarity between the rhetoric of IDers and that
of Holocaust deniers. Both proclaim that they're being censored (at least
Holocaust deniers have some justification for that claim in some countries),
and all they really want is a chance to state their case. But what they
really want is for their irrational arguments to be accepted as valid.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 12:33:56 EDT