>Bertvan:
>>ID is obviously of no value to you. Other scientists are
> >finding it a useful concept. Why should you object?
Bill:
>Useful concept to what end? Scientists are mostly - like the rest of us -
>interested in funding. Funding by whom? The American Athiest Assoc?
Bertvan: Hi Bill,
Probably it is useful to them by assuming every piece of nature has a
purpose, and nothing is "junk". In any case, no one is trying to force the
concept upon anyone who doesn't find it useful. So again, I ask what do you
care what assumptions other scientists work under? As long as the public is
convinced ID equals "creationism", it will receive no funding and it will not
be discussed in scientific journals.
Bill:
>Scientists are interested in ID but not in the designer? Boggles my mind.
>I can't think of a parallel situation. Police investigating the mechanics
>of a murder with no interest in finding the murderer?
Bertvan:
Can you investigate a "Big Bang" without knowing what caused it?
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 12:47:34 EDT