Joined: Jan. 2007
Dembski on Davis:
|(Davis says) ... [ID] tries to displace [scientific materialism] by setting up a new science, which is really just a disguised form of religion.|
In response, Dembski says:
| [...] but has ID identified fundamental conceptual flaws and evidential lacunae in the conventional materialistic understanding of biological origins and is its appeal to intelligence conceptually sound and empirically supported?|
Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that ID has not identified "fundamental conceptual flaws" (IC and CSI? Please), and "evidential lacunae" (did someone buy a thesaurus recently?) - note that Dembski never bothers to critique the point that as Davis has pointed out - even if ID were "conceptually sound and empirically supported", ID is not science (note: last thursdayism is "conceptually sound and empirically supported", but is not science).