On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Philip Thrift wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:01:34 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >The fact is, there is a real scientific debate going on ...
>
> I don't think most scientists think so
> ( http://www.natcenscied.org/id17-3.htm ).

If that's how you form your judgments of such things then there's
also no real debate about whether fat is bad for you, or whether
whole grains are good for you, etc.  Like the Discovery
Institute, the NSCE has an "agenda," which includes squelching
Intelligent Design.  There's nothing wrong with agendas; just
recognize them for what they are.

Appeals to authority can take you only so far; then you must
engage the arguments.  Mike Behe is a real scientist, with a
theory based on scientific arguments.  And Kenneth Miller is also
a scientist, with opposing views.  The contest will be fought in
the arena of ideas, *if it is permitted*.  Behe is by no means
the only scientist who doubts neodarwinism, especially as an
explanation of the origin of life on this planet.  As I mentioned
in another message, Nobel laureate Francis Crick is another.

Behe and Crick reach different conclusions, but they agree on the
inadequacy of what "most scientists" think.  Crick's views are
even mentioned in some science textbooks.  Is there some reason
why Behe's shouldn't be?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]