Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
| Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 21 2012,12:24) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 20 2012,03:47) | |
Motive mongering is a two-way street. Any of you can point out the religious convictions of I.D. proponents, and I can return the favor by pointing out the atheism of the most outspoken of Darwin defenders.
In the end, it's all a big waste of time. All that matters is the evidence, and the evidence, both from the origin of life and the revealed directiveness of biology via internal technology points OVERWHELMINGLY towards design. It is every bit as powerful as the evidence for the gravitational force, perhaps even stronger. Relying on disingenuous games, like the Onion Test, does not change one iota of any of this, but instead reveals just how far Darwin's once-proud theory has fallen. It's the flat Earth of the 21st century.
Let's be completely honest here, although I know that's quite a challenge for most of you. Darwinism has devolved from scientific theory, to failed scientific hypothesis, to stealth atheist religion. We know of the strong correlation between those proselytizing for Darwinism and atheism. Eugenics Scott, Barbara Forrest, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, etc. -- all well-known Liars for Darwin; all militant atheists.
You people defend Darwinian evolution, not for scientific reasons, but because it's your religion. You need it to be true; your intellectual fulfillment demands it. You'll lie to yourselves, and to others, to maintain the illusion that it is. You absolutely abhor anyone who challenges that propped-up illusion, which is why we see so much vulgar filth being spewed at I.D. proponents.
Your true motivations, emotional, rather than rational, are revealed in every four-letter word you hurl.
You guys have lost. Deep down inside you know it, which further spurs on your insecure fits of vulgarity.
My advice? Quit deluded yourselves and join those of us in the 21st century, a period in which the beauty and sophistication of design has revealed itself in all its glory. It's really not all that bad. In fact, viewing biology as the artwork of an ingenious artist (engineer) is really quite intellectually stimulating. |
Really, really barking up the wrong tree if "Dr. Jammer" is including me in the class of "most outspoken of Darwin defenders". If not, then "Dr. Jammer" is being disingenuous to raise the issue of demography of beliefs supposedly as a reply to me.
I refute IDC arguments by reference to evidence.
I refute IDC political strategems with reference to motivations, which is perfectly appropriate in that context. It is, in fact, part of the established mechanism of evaluating legal claims in the courts. It is also relevant when IDC advocates broach ethical claims and other meta-commentary.
I don't limit myself to commenting only upon questions about science; I certainly don't see the IDC contingent keeping their discussion to "just the facts", either.
Confusing and conflating the two approaches taken is simple demagoguery.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
), regardless of why they believe them.
