Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (cdanner @ Mar. 24 2010,14:55)|
|You disparage his beliefs (and mine) simply because you disagree with Christianity in general.|
If you had actually read the posts in this thread, you would know this statement is false. It's a straw man.
Many of those who have raised serious objections to Dembski's work (and ID in general) profess to be Christians. That includes some of the people dragging Dembski over the coals in this very thread.
Certainly there are some here who consider religion to be an irrational, misguided pursuit, but this is not the basis of specific objections to ID. The objection is based on the fact that IDs proponents claim ID is science, when it in fact does not meet the accepted definitions of science, and appears to be a rather transparent attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of a particular religious dogma as science and impose it on the educational system.
Yes, there is a lot of snark and mockery in this thread. Do you know why ? It's because creationists generally do exactly what you've done in the above post. Namely, you fail to address the actual arguments.
If you believe your old earth creationist view is justified by evidence, we can certainly start a thread to discuss this (or better yet, you should publish your arguments in the appropriate scientific journals!) OTOH, if you just take it on faith, that is your right, but please don't expect those who do not share your particular faith to take it seriously, and do expect us to object loudly if you attempt to pass those beliefs off as science.