Joined: Sep. 2006
I especially like the way they're subtly rewriting the history of science. For a long time, the IDers were advertising themselves as the next great paradigm change (and O'Tardly still is, in her recent channelling of Thomas Kuhn). Now, however, we're in a post-revolutionary period, it seems, when (apart from a few holdouts) science has already gone through its paradigm change, and has embraced "Design Theory" (or "Disembodied Telic Entityism," or whatever it's called) as its working heuristic.
Witness Gil Dodgen (in comment 18):
Since Copernicus, science seemed to be on a steady and irrevocable path that would ultimately demystify everything — that is, explain everything in purely materialistic terms.
Then came the latter half of the 20th century and everything took a strange 180-degree turn. Science was discovering intrinsic design everywhere it looked (should one be honest), and it took a huge amount of effort to explain it all away in purely materialistic terms.
Now that's good tard!
My favorite comment from the whole thread, though, is this little gem from the profoundly challenged Mats:
What this article seems to sugest is that, as “science” advances, religionists should make a run for it.
Can religion stand up to the progress of science?
It depens on the religion, and depends on the definition of science. The religion of Darwinism surelly can’t stand up the light of science, whereas Christianity can stand up the light of science easily.
Excuse me, I have to go and sacrifice a goat to Dobzhansky.