RE: Two Complementary faces of establishment science

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:45:22 -0700

> They are terms which have a loaded meaning, perhaps they should
> be avoided but when properly understood how they are used in the
> various circumstances, one can still understand the meaning.
> It's a confusion which arises when common vocabulary is used to
> discuss issues.

DT: Pim, I am tempted to say to these Darwinists: "Put your own house in
order". I would not use the word "perhaps" as you do. I would also
suggest that the words, when "properly understood", convey design and
the marks of an intelligent agent. In this area, it is Darwinists
who are muddying the waters! My agument here is for consistency.

I agree. But they are only human.

DT: In a way, I agree with the Darwinian authors of the letter to Nature.
Where I disagree with them is that this Darwinian position is the
only one that is acceptable in the academic community.

Any scientific explanation which does a better job at explaining the observations of evolutions would be acceptable.