quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I've read this initial post again, and think that the most interesting
point is the above.
Maybe we WILL have an Einstein of 'Life Diversity' theory at some
stage, who turns science on its head with new visions.
The main thing here is to distinguish between genuine science, aimed
at explanation, and political meanderings aimed at pushing
some group or other's agenda.
YEC is, in my opinion, not motivated by a search for explanation,
and niether is ID.
This is completely false. Are you saying that a scientific theory, however convincing it may be, should have no differing views? ID and Creationism, for whatever reasons, does provide a reason to look at evolution much more closely. These ideas that are in contrast to evolution should be considered positive by all of the science community because it forces evolutionist to answer questions and dig deeper. ID and Creationist scientists have posed numerous questions that NEED to be answered even if they're for all the wrong reasons as you think. Should we all just go along with evolution and say, "whatever." Not thinking outside the box, especially with something that is considered theory, is a very dangerous path to go down. I wonder if evolutionary scientist would have even cared to search for explanations of irreducible complexity and the likes if it weren't for opposition. Make no mistakes about it, no scientist is a completely unbiased observer. Everyone has their ideas on what the world is about and religious philosophies, even if its a lack thereof, so the diversity of these beliefs in the science community is the greatest asset one could ask for. In the lack of true unbiasness the only other solution is having multiple biased views, not relying on a single biased view.
™ Version 4.2