Kristine
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (didymos @ April 09 2011,21:51) | I give you CannuckianYankee's fantasies about the inevitable victory of ID:
| Quote | I think we’ll hear proclamations such as:
Former Darwinist: “Well we never really disagreed with Dembski, we simply demanded more rigor in his argument. He produced it, and we were pleased.”
Another former Darwinist: “So Behe was right; so what. We knew it all along.”
Another former Darwinist: “Well Meyer’s book was just too dense and I couldn’t get through it. If I had known then what I know now, I would never have lampooned it on Amazon.”
Yet another former Darwinist: “The current thinking is what neoDarwinism was leading too. The original ID proponents jumped the gun too soon and without evidence, due to their religious biases, and we demonstrated this as the case. Remember Dover? Oh never mind. |
Oh, yes. This all seems so very likely indeed. See you in Waterloo! |
Oh, ha ha ha!
Let me put my head on the Darwinian chopping block, so they can hit my neck with a wet noodle:
I disagree vehemently with Dembski.
Michael Behe is wrong and a quack. ("If it walks like a duck...")
Meyer is just plain dense.
We shall Dovercome.
Yes, there goes my career. Waterloo! 
--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
