Lola wrote-
Quote:But obviously, if certain scientific knowledge or activity is clearly immoral or destructive, then efforts should be made to control or regulate how or if it is used.
So you are in favour of muzzling science then thou elegant purveyor of magical charm trinkets and the raids on bloke's wallets. Just those who need their ladies made over I mean.
Who is to decide what is "immoral or destructive". The unreconstructed, not incompletely baked IDer such as Dr Frankenstein might well fancy a go at cloning human beings and would be reduced to uncontrollabe tittering at the idea of banning subliminal advertising.
We are agreed again Lola. We both, obviously, are in favour of muzzling science. And we haven't mentioned the steamies yet.
Is anybody against muzzling science? Are any of these so-called anti-IDers against muzzling science or are they incompletely baked as I have said all along. If they are trimmers, which they are, it is only a matter of debating the moving interface. Not the principle.
Fossils are pretty neutral and easy to get all scientifically methodisty about.
At least IDers principles are trustworthy. And iders more so. Anti-IDers are scientific methodisty when it suits their purposes.
(Gets out snake-oil display case).