Re: Sternberg and Galileo: was My article "Intelligent Design on Trial"

Most readers probably agree with you, Don. I don't.

In a rare exception to my rule that "I don't do blogs," I went onto
pandasthumb when Sternberg got blindsided and made the very comparison
repeated in my article. Galileo went through the censors and published his
book, with its offending passage in the mouth of Simplicio (for which
incidentally he was to blame). After the book came out, it hit the fan and
the pope ruined the censors (along with Galileo). The parallel I see is in
the action of the powers that be, after an article has gone through the
censors, to ruin the censors for not excising the author's views. There is
a point, IMO, to the complaint that ID is not science b/c editors won't give
it a chance to b/c science. Just as there is a point, IMO, to the defense
that editors need to exert editorial judgement. Perfection in this is
elusive, but surely an editor ought to be allowed to publish the rare piece
asking questions in a responsible way about fundamental assumptions?

I imagine we still disagree, Don, and I'm fine with that.

Good day,

ted
Received on Thu Mar 2 00:33:41 2006