Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,19:00)|
|Jeez....yet it's just those dratted creationists who are such unfair moderators.|
Your concern is touching, but it the reason for the current policy is quite clear. On the plus side, it encourages me to slow down and think about what I write. Restricting the ability to edit existing posts isn't remotely comparable banning people from UD for making clear, logical, well argued points that happen to be damaging to the ID position. The latter is censorship, while the former is not.
Now how explaining why we see clear nested hierarchies in the natural world, but not in things that are known products of common design ?
Do you disagree that cars or operating systems are examples of common design ? Can you convincingly arrange them into nested hierarchies by comparing their traits ?
Can you show that the science of Phylogenetic systematics is flawed such that the nested hierarchies we detect natural world aren't real* ?
If not, how do you defend your position that common design explains the data just as well as common descent ?
* If you can, then you will put a bigger dent in "darwinism" than the entire ID/creationist movement has to date. Dr Dr Dembski is a mathematician, so this should be right up his alley.