Bertvan: What puzzles me is this emotional opposition to anyone even
considering ID. ID supporters acknowledge RM&NS as a legitimate theory --
supported by
evidence. Some of them even believe it played a part in evolution.
Does that mean that science should accept ID just because ID accepts some of
science? Of course not. As long as ID remains a faith issue like in your
case, I have no problems with ID but ID is not just a faith issue anymore.
ID'ers are trying to introduce ID into the science curriculum.
Bertvan: I haven't heard ID supporters attack the motives, intelligence or
honesty of
those with whom they disagree. They don't appear to want to prevent anyone
from considering RM&NS. ID offers a choice.
Again, ID offers a choice outside science. Within science ID does not offer
a choice.
Bertvan: While many of the details of biology and evolution are not always
understood by laymen, everyone is entitled to an opinion on the general
principles, such as whether nature is the result of a design or the result
of random processes - whether purpose exists as a part of nature. When
people are allowed a choice about beliefs for which there is no proof one
way or the other, I'll lose interest in the
controversy.
People always have the choice, just don't pretend that it is science. It's as
simple as that. ID is at this moment not a scientific option, it's foundation
seems quite lacking and ID is infered based on absence of knowledge rather
than on knowledge.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 10 2000 - 13:29:31 EDT