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".
Probably? Now you are speculating.
Bertvan: In any case, no one is trying to force the
concept upon anyone who doesn't find it useful.
ROTFL. Of course they are, they are trying to get ID into our science
education. If ID was merely used to provide people of faith with evidence
supporting their faith then fine but now that ID pretends to be scientific it
deserves all the attention.
Bertvan: 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.
Really? I am sure you can support this?
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?
Big Bang is investigated based on positive evidence. ID is based on the lack
of evidence. But this was not the argument that was made though. I suggest
you address the argument instead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 02 2000 - 16:38:53 EDT