Re: Response to Baylor

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (Susan-Brassfield@ou.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:01:56 EDT

  • Next message: David Bradbury: "Re: Numerical Significance"

    >
    >Following is the response of a member of congress to the protesting
    >professors of Baylor. I predict most Americans will eventually react
    >similarly to attempts to dismiss ID as "creationism". . . .
    >
    >Bertvan

    That some senator had Johnson write a letter he signed isn't all that
    impressive. The American public does not vote on what science is.
    Scientists decide what science is and ID is not science. The Baylor
    professors statement that FMAJ supplied does an excellent job of explaining
    why ID is not science and why ID fails in the marketplace of ideas.

    >. . . So keep up the good
    >work Susan.

    Thanks, I plan to.

    >presented by those on both sides of this debate. I want to thank Philip
    >Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert * * * of
    >Princeton University, and others in drafting this response.

    So . . . the senator used free will to sign this thing, but where is his
    creativity and spontaneity? Unmeasureable by science, obviously!

    Susan

    ----------

     I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
    by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
    why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct
    species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and
    natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the
    laws of ordinary reproduction.

    ---Charles Darwin

    http://www.telepath.com/susanb/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 13:04:25 EDT