In a message dated 10/6/2000 8:10:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nucacids@aol.com writes:
> << OOL researchers are *not* claiming to have scientific evidence of OOL.
> Dembski *is* claiming to have scientific evidence of ID. Important
> difference. >>
>
> NUC: Yet most scientists embrace OOL claims, even to the point of teaching
> it
> in text books.
>
That's quite different though. They are embracing experiments that have shown
what mechanisms could have played a role in the origins of life.
> NUC: Another point to make in support of DNAunion's point is that it took
> about 60
> years to turn Darwin's thesis into a robust science (the Modern Synthesis).
>
> Darwin and his followers were not obliged to concede to their critics and
> abandon their ideas during these 60 years. Expecting Dembski to do in one
> year what their community did in 60 years is unreasonable.
And yet the Wedge strategy expects this miracle to happen in 5 years? Even
worse, in case of Dembski people have pointed out some quite insurmountable
problems with his thesis. One cannot blame ID'ers from hoping though that the
future will be different but placing science on a timed plan is likely to
fail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 15:21:22 EDT