Well, this has been an interesting discussion! Much thanks to BA77 for useful background info. Recommended.
Some respondents also attempted to interject the claim that ID does not have a valid research program (RDFish?)
First, whether any intellectual enterprise has a “valid” research program isn’t a reasonable question unless the public is being asked to buy in (public funding, legislation, curricula, etc.).
Private parties should be free to spend their money on any not-obviously criminal enterprise they wish.
Is it valid to spend (waste?) money on the search for ET? Origin of life? In the absence of useful answers, that must remain an open question.
My own view (O’Leary for News) favors spending a certain amount of money on stuff taxpayers are just plain interested in. It’s their money, after all. But not if it all becomes a big, stupid public fight.
Second, I am not aware of any claim that ID should be tax-funded. The only group that could possibly advocate that would be Discovery Institute, which doesn’t advocate it.
Darwin’s followers, by contrast, think that every third- or fourth-rate Darwin shout should be publicly funded.
Maybe that is the secret of their success, in a world where people still listen to airheads and bimbos in legacy media?
Note to investors: Biotech obviously does not depend on Darwinism but rather on design. Darwinism did not even correctly predict antibiotic resistance. If you think Darwinism matters in biotech, and need the portfolio for your retirement, put your affairs in the hands of a trustee.
Let’s hope the professionals there are smarter than some of the investors.
Follow UD News at Twitter!