>
>Following is the response of a member of congress to the protesting
>professors of Baylor. I predict most Americans will eventually react
>similarly to attempts to dismiss ID as "creationism". . . .
>
>Bertvan
That some senator had Johnson write a letter he signed isn't all that
impressive. The American public does not vote on what science is.
Scientists decide what science is and ID is not science. The Baylor
professors statement that FMAJ supplied does an excellent job of explaining
why ID is not science and why ID fails in the marketplace of ideas.
>. . . So keep up the good
>work Susan.
Thanks, I plan to.
>presented by those on both sides of this debate. I want to thank Philip
>Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert * * * of
>Princeton University, and others in drafting this response.
So . . . the senator used free will to sign this thing, but where is his
creativity and spontaneity? Unmeasureable by science, obviously!
Susan
----------
I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
laws of ordinary reproduction.
---Charles Darwin
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:04:25 EDT