>Cliff H:
> >I've noticed that you've brought this idea up a few times.
> > I think Steven has also. I was wondering, how do you
> >explain myself and my collegues at Baylor and Calvin
> >University, as well as many others, who are Christians
> >(or any other religion), who also agree that Darwinian
> >evolution is the best answer to the question of life's origins?
> >Am I bashing myself?
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Cliff H, I don't have to explain your beliefs, or however you might have
>arrived at them. That is your business. The "evidence" for design has
>convinced some; others remain unconvinced. I support your right to express
>your beliefs. I protest any efforts to prevent expression of opposing views.
> I understand Baylor is where professors rose up in protest, merely because
>the question was being discussed -- by people supporting and opposing ID.
>(It wasn't even connected with the science department.) As long as any
>portion of the public remains convinced everyone supporting ID is a
>"creationist" or a "religious fundamentalist", I will remain a vocal
>supporter of the movement. When other scientists stop questioning the
>academic credentials or personal integrity of those scientists supporting ID,
>I'll probably loose interest in the controversy.
Chris
I suspect that when those "scientists" supporting ID actually do some
science that *does* support ID, or show more than "painted-on" signs of at
least intellectual integrity (other kinds of integrity are not of much
concern to scientists when evaluating his or her work), then other
scientists probably *will* stop questioning their credentials and
integrity. So far, we appear to have a long wait ahead of us if we are
waiting for this to happen, if Dembski, Behe, Hoyle, and Thaxton are any
indication.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 00:23:43 EDT