Joined: Sep. 2006
We're having a little discussion at my blog about this... I'm afraid I blatted on and on, and I didn't mean to, but I am very disturbed about the lines being drawn here - Dembski lashing out at Miller, Febble being banned, etc. I am as sickened by Wells as I can be, but he gets a free pass to "exercise his freedom of speech" about AIDS, whereas Christians who have something to say get the harsh treatment.
I expect Dembski to pick on Dawkins and PZ and Gould and Scott, etc., but Ken Miller? Come on, Bill. We all know that your agenda is about the supernatural. If you would just be honest about it I could respect that.
Man, lemme tell you guys something. I don't believe in the supernatural, but if I did, you wouldn't catch me arguing with other believers about God's nature or what God thinks or what God can and cannot do/be. You can only fight about things you own, know, or have control over. Get me?
ID just ain't working out, and you'd think a believer like William Dembski (but is he a believer or a doubter who can't afford to look at his doubt?) would at least see this as a sign and realize that his deity obviously doesn't like to be told what to do. Does he need me to tell him this? Helloooo! It's call idolatry, Bill!
I am reminded of a local teacher who told of a mother coming to her daughter's parent-teacher conference to fight for a better grade for her daughter's paper. The mother launched into all sorts of explanations as to why the paper deserved an A, until the teacher realized that this mother was fighting so hard because the daughter hadn't written the paper after all - the mother had! Likewise, is Dembski fighting for what he thinks is the truth, or is he dig in just because ID is his idea, all his? Get me?
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr