fresco wrote-
Quote:It seems to me that evolution cannot be accounted for by "simple" (linear) mechanisms alone yet on the other hand we now have achieved sufficient understanding of nonlinear "systems complexity" to restrict ID to the "layman's palliative" curriculum.
I presume there is an opposite to "layman". Expert say.
What estimate of the proportion of layman to expert would you offer? Is 99 to 1 anywhere near?
In a democracy wouldn't the 99 vote to retain their palliative and be happy to fund the 1's research for the material benefit they provide them with?
Is an attack on the 99 an attack on democracy. Some have said that I make no point. Well that has been one of my main points since this started.
Is science causing a division in the human race? What chance does the 1 have if it pushes and insults the 99 overmuch with gratuitous insults which serve only to reveal the ignorance of the insulter and his very weak expertise at the art of the insult.
How can the 99 be educated to the 1's "point of view" when each year pushes knowledge into more abstruse areas? Is the gap between the 1 and the 99 inevitably widening faster than any education of the 99 can possibly cope with in view of the obvious fact that teachers are in the 99, as are publishers and politicians, and intelligence is a given.
Is the 1 not a fixed group but varies with the area of knowledge? Is an expert on bats just as lost as a garbage collector when it comes to particle physics or etymology etc.
Is an attack on the palliative simply pretending to be within the 1 group using an exceedingly narrow area of knowledge simplistically viewed and focussed upon. Wouldn't a genuine member of the 1 stay out of public debate?
Are anti-IDers guilty of refusing to face up to these issues for self-serving reasons.
PS- There's a book review on Google Sunday Times Books of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. He's one of the 1 don't you know and I bet he can't even fix his own plumbing.