> 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.
Tyler: 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?
The same way as any other new idea or hypothesis, it earns its place in academia.
Tyler: Who says what can be permitted and what can not? There IS a
Nobody.
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.
Many have been known to be wrong.