Perhaps academic freedom is also healthy in biology. Perhaps ID has been
rejected
on its merits rather than on a perpetuation of the
"impression". Have you considered
this possibility?
Hi Brian,
I consider it legitimate for a materialist to reject any hint of design or
teleology on what they consider its merits. Most fields are a healthy
mixture of materialists and non materialists. When the Kansas school board
did nothing more than refuse to teach that the mechanisms of macro evolution
are know "facts", they were attacked by the press as being religious
extremists. The fact that no biologist spoke out in their defense suggests
those biologists who are not materialists are intimidated by a those who
appear to have some anti religious axe to grind. If Talk Origins is not an
official spokesman for biology, biology should find some spokesmen other than
Dawkins and Gould. I don't know why I'm protesting. This acrimonious
controversy is going reach the talk shows soon, and that should be great
entertainment.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 14 2000 - 09:27:14 EST