From: MikeBGene@aol.com <MikeBGene@aol.com>
>Don't the faculty at Baylor realize that the way to stop an erroneous
>idea is not to silence it? If someone has a plausible idea that promises
>X and Y, then give it the chance to deliver.
The issue (as far as I'm concerned) is not whether ID is plausible, but the
fact that a theory with no scientific evidence is being touted as science.
In other words, it's pseudoscience. I can quite understand why real
scientists don't want to have their university associated with it. IDers are
not being silenced -- they can and do express their views through other
channels. Why should they be given a privileged platform for their ideas?
>>Incidentally, I agree with Mike that there are grounds for a "suspicion of
>>design". But a suspicion is not enough to form the basis for scientific
>>theory.
>
>I agree. A suspicion is grounds only for a continued investigation that,
>over time, has the potential of generating a scientific theory.
Furthermore,
>the only ones likely to conduct that investigation are those who have
>the suspicion. Thus, I would not expect my suspicions to dictate how
>others do their science. Unfortunate, however, is that science cannot
>provide an arena for a serious consideration of that suspicion.
I would have no objection to a credible programme to search for evidence of
ID (although I personally think that would be a waste of time because I
don't think they'd find any). Similarly, I have no objection to genuine
scientific research into the paranormal. But this is not what we see in the
case of ID. Where is the research programme? As far as I can see, there is
none. All the IDers are doing is generating and propagating specious
arguments.
>>The problem is that Dembski and his supporters base their theory on
>>a suspicion, and then want to make it "the dominant perspective in
science"!
>
>I don't think they would agree that their case amounts only to a
>suspicion.
Yes, you're right. For them, it's not a suspicion but a conviction.
>But keep in mind I speak only for myself. I am not
>interested in what is to be "the dominant perspective in science."
>I'm simply interested in satisfying the curiosity generated by
>my suspicions.
Glad to hear it. ;-)
Richard Wein (Tich)
See my web pages for various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 18 2000 - 19:04:39 EDT