On 3/31/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pim, I don't have time to go on and on about something this obvious. If you
> think what Dawkins is doing is merely debunking ID, what can I say? Either
> you haven't actually read or listened to Dawkins' hateful diatribes against
> religion of any kind, or your anti-ID glasses are so thick that you can only
> see through that lense, or something else.
Or there is another alternative, namely that your portrayal of Dawkins
may be based on a lack of familiarity with his position.
>Not the slightest chance when every few days we get the repeated
mantra of "Scientifically
> Vacuous" rammed down our throats. There is one thing I know well, and that is that Pim thinks
> ID is scientifically vacuous, because he must have told us so about 150 times!
> It's about time both sides started listening to each other instead of making insulting statements
It's not meant as an insult but as a simple observation of fact. ID is
scientifically vacuous because of the simple reason that it lacks a
foundation to make a non-begging-the-question assumption about
anything. At best it can argue 'X cannot be explained by Y' but that
has no relevance to the position of ID.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 31 13:55:45 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 13:55:48 EDT