OK, I'll bite.
On 5/11/06, Jeremiah S. Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1. "...in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy".
That's not true. There is a significantly large number of thinking
individuals (legitimate scientists included) for whom the question of
evolution vs. ID is hardly settled, and for whom the notion of ID does
not clash with their scientific temper. A band of leading scientists
publishing a statement that there is no debate does not cause the debate
to wink out of existence.
Phrases like "significantly large number" and "thinking individuals"
are weasel words. Please site peer reviewed sources where these
"legitimate scientists" you speak of have publicly expressed their
opinions.
2. In the same way, a group of leading scientists publishing a statement
that ID is false does nothing to the existence (or non-existence) of an
Intelligent Designer. If such a being exists, then their statement does
not cause him to wink out of existence. While the burden of proof of his
existence has been on the ID group, his non-existence not yet been
proved by those anti to the concept (even if his existence is not
considered essential, Occam's razor, blah, blah).
ID is not a scientific proposal to begin with because, unlike
scientific proposals, it does not enumerate tests that can be carried
out to invalidate the proposal.
Thaths
PS; Woohoo! Silk has its own kook.
--
"Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could buy all kinds of
useful things... like love." -- Homer J. Simpson
