>Cliff:
>> They will also use it to justify the
>>way that they aim their arguments at the public and politicians, bypassing
>>the scientific community--another sign of the propagandist nature of their
>>campaign. In doing so, they will ignore the possibility that the paper was
>>rejected simply because it lacked scientific merit.
>
Bertvan:
>I agree. The journal can hardly be accused of intolerance when they promosed
>to consider a paper on ID within another 1000 years--if it has merit.
Cliff should consider a lucrative job with the Psychic Hotline. You just
did exactly what he said ID proponents would do.
Meanwhile you should work on your reading comprehension. The revewer below
was talking about coming back in 1000 years and seeing if *biology*--not
ID--is a failure.
And what you overlooked was the reviewer inviting the ID scientists to join
in doing actual research.
Susan
>http://www.discovery.org/embeddedRecentArticles.php3?id=450
>
>Quoted from the above:
>
>If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become apparent in due time
>through failures of science. It would be very much out of place to denounce
>such failures now, since they have not occurred. Having not yet understood
>all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given the amount of
>understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again in 1000 years.
>Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare scientists their metaphysics and just
>let the scientists do their work--or join them in doing it.
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 15:26:50 EDT