RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 160
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2007,09:28   

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).

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]