>Stephen Quoted:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that
>convinces
>me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes
>possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists
>argue
>their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best
>arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda
>and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does
>it rely upon enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
>official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
>welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would
>want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them
>as straw men. . . .
So whatever goofy definition of science or evolution Johnson can pull out
of his butt is what the scientists are supposed to defend and explain. Not
the *actual* version of science or evolution! I see. . . Well, nice work if
you can get it!
Susan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 25 2000 - 19:37:49 EDT