> Let [ID] first prove itself that it deserves a place in academia.
> Presently ID has nothing to add to science. Why should they be
> permitted ? Should it not succeed on its own merrits? If ID has
> some merrits then science cannot ignore it. So far it has not been
> too succesful.
David
If it is not "permitted", how can it "prove itself"? If it is not
allowed a place in academia, how can it demonstrate its relevance and
value to science?
Who says what can be permitted and what can not? There IS a
scientific establishment - and it does have an influence. What are
the tenets of this establishment? Many of us think that the
opposition to ID is ideological rather than scientific.
Chris
Shall we just include every unsupported collection of superstitions? If we
do, there won't be any room left for actual science.
Besides, any university that wants to can include courses on design-theory
or anything else. They can include courses on Leprechauns in anthropology
departments. They can include courses on numerology, astrology, and so on.
Who's stopping them? Certainly, PRIVATE universities can do this. They can
even set up design-theory research departments, if they want to.