Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Ftk @ June 15 2007,14:05)|
|Oh, BS, Stephen. Dembski has nothing to be ashamed of at all. Even if DaveScot is a jerk to some of you at times, I can't imagine that he is actually the one who turned this place into a pit of spewing ridicule toward those you disagree with. I mean, do you actually think that people take this place seriously? Shoot, that's why I could care less of what you people say about my views. Reasonable people reading some of the stuff on this forum might get a few laughs, but when they consider the attitudes of the posters here, it's abundantly clear where the anger at ID stems from. |
Know what else? I don't think you were ever probably as strong an ID supporter as you believe you might have been. If you were, you'd consider Behe's new book with more interest. From what I've always understood about Behe, he believes the same thing you and Wesley supposedly believe. That there is a designer, and that common descent and evolution are pretty much "fact".
It's the "edge" of evolution that is in question here. That is what ID is about, and you seem to fail to understand that.
You and Wesley have no reason to reject ID other than perhaps you don't want to consider how evolutionary mechanisms started working on that first microbe, and exactly what they are actually cabable of. Why the fear of trying to find out?
You see, FTK, that is the difference, as had as it may be for you to understand, between ID and science.
We don't shut off our minds and blindly agree with someone just because they say a few other things we like. Behe is wrong - so wrong the only real possibility left open is he is intentionally lying, given his past. (DaveScot and Dembski are ignorant - Behe has no excuse) The reason we know that is, unlike you, we actually checked out his reasoning, despite his acceptance of common decent and evolution (But only when its convenient for him).
I know this goes against everything in the ID movement - but you might want to try it sometime. We certainly didn't get where we are today by being uncritical - Kepler and Newton had some nutty ideas that we reject, despite the fact that both are important figures in modern physics.
So, ID is now about shoving god into every imaginary gap in evolution, is it? Why hasn't Dembski changed his websites name, I wonder? UD seems to imply pretty forcefully that ID supports neither common descent or evolution.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris