In a message dated 4/18/00 4:01:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu writes:
<< >[snip]
>Yes, those "objective scientists"...engage in conspiracy-theory type
paranoia
>to paint ID as creationism, use rhetoric to elevate it to something
>that "endangers" the university, and then scare people by trying to
>equate Bill Dembski with Bob Jones University....They are simply
>reacting to their own simple-minded and hysterical labelling,
>but, of course, are too "objective" to realize this.
>
>But throughout all this, what really catches my eye is this...the
>scientific community is not able to seriously
>contemplate and weigh questions about natural history and ID.
>When a concern about reputation shapes how we approach questions,
>we're not dealing with that idealistic notion of objection science.
>We're not talking peer review, we're talking high school-like peer pressure.
So, how do you reconcile these two paragraphs? On one hand you complain
about scientists using the "broad-brush" approach to paint ID into a
creationist corner. Then you return the favor and use the broad-brush to
tarnish the whole scientific community. >>
Simple - in IDism, anything goes!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 19 2000 - 13:08:57 EDT