Joined: May 2006
|Quote (kn0808 @ April 30 2012,16:14)|
|While all of you are attacking Dembski, you are not making any kind of argument of your own. No one has even made an argument against one of his statements. You have simply discredited him and sworn at him. While you may not agree with Dembski or Intelligent Design, give me a rational explanation about what specifically is wrong with it and defend your own position. You are actually demonstrating exactly what he says neo-Atheists do in his book The End of Christianity when he says:|
“Instead of presenting scientific evidence that shows atheism to be true (or probable), the neo-atheists moralize about how much better the world would be if only atheism were true. Far from demonstrating that God does not exist, the neo-atheists merely demonstrate how earnestly they desire that God not exist.”
Your criticism towards Dembski would be much more founded if you actually had an argument against him or his belief.
And what has Dembski ever done except to redefine design explicitly in order to include life within that definition? It was an entirely illegitimate attempt to get around the fact that he has no evidence that life was designed, hence the resort to merely defining it as designed.
All of the rest of his nonsense is just so much noise to try to cover up that dishonest word-gaming.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy