tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post110832742890354939..comments2024-03-28T03:54:21.932-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: What to do when Intelligent Design comes to town.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1108426440711737992005-02-14T19:14:00.000-05:002005-02-14T19:14:00.000-05:00"And pompous, pretentious, condescending, patroniz..."<I>And pompous, pretentious, condescending, patronizing...</I>"<br /><br />Actually, it is more of a condescending sort of contempt and disdain for Naturalism.<br /><br />As to condescension, it is not as if it is my fault that I must descend to your level.mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1108426243175751272005-02-14T19:10:00.000-05:002005-02-14T19:10:00.000-05:00"Note again how I never even got into the substanc..."<I>Note again how I never even got into the substance of ID.</I>"<br /><br />My point exactly, yet you make the inane claim, "How can they [IDers] argue?" How can they argue against your lack of substance? Easily enough.<br /><br />"<I>The commenter is trying to goad you into an intellectual discussion of ID...</I>"<br /><br />Exactly, but you seem to have some trouble with intelligence. Maybe you can't think through your brain, some of your memes seem ignorant. <br /><br />"Oh, yeah? Well, what about Dembski? I'll bet you haven't read Dembski."<br /><br />I'm not saying read anyone as a personal issue. I'm saying to deal with things in an intelligent way. Logically, it all must be a personal issue for you though. For supposedly you are looking at Dembski's physical brain events if you read his text, given the ignorant and stupid philosophy of naturalism that you seem to want to adhere to. Therefore, it really is all just a personal issue.<br /><br />"... I recommend this piece over at TalkOrigins."<br /><br />I've already discussed things with the talk.origins halfwits. Can you write for yourself or do you lack the intelligence to write some intelligent design in your symbols and signs? <br /><br />What are you doing here and now, looking at pixels on a screen? Is that what the words are? Can you recognize signs of intelligence? <br /><br />I think the explanation that your words are just a random artifact of the biochemical state of your brain and its events at the moment is probably close to the truth. After all, that naturalistic explanation is downright <I>scientific</I>! Is it not? <br /><br />I'm sure you know the science of things. Science, and all that...mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1108373159997028632005-02-14T04:25:00.000-05:002005-02-14T04:25:00.000-05:00Quoth the commenter:
"You might want to try actu...Quoth the commenter: <br /><br /><I>"You might want to try actually reading a whole book on intelligent design such as the Design Revolution by Dembski before trying to comment on a complex subject."</I>Ooooh. Early morning snark. And pompous, pretentious, condescending, patronizing and utterly irrelevant snark at that. What <B>ever</B> did I do to deserve this? :-)<br /><br />In the first place, it's a <B>really</B> bad idea to assume what you think I've read and not read on the subjects of biological evolution, scientific creationism and Intelligent [sic] Design. You'll almost certainly be wrong.<br /><br />More to the point, though, as <B>most</B> readers will have appreciated, the whole point of my post was to emphasize that you <B>don't</B> have to be an expert in any of these fields to be able to quote Behe's article, specifically where he <B>explicitly</B> admits that ID proponents "<B>do not doubt that evolution occurred</B>." <br /><br />In other words, what one thinks of [William] Dembski's work is totally, completely and utterly irrelevant to the subject of my article. However, I am grateful to the commenter for providing a perfect example of how pro-IDers operate.<br /><br />Note again how I never even got into the substance of ID. I simply pointed out how one of its most high-profile proponents, Michael Behe, openly admits that ID is totally compatible with biological evolution.<br /><br />The commenter, though, responds almost immediately with the attitude of, "Oh, yeah? Well, what about Dembski? I'll bet you haven't read Dembski."<br /><br />The commenter is trying to goad you into an intellectual discussion of ID, and drag you into obscure ideas to demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding ID. Do <B>not</B> take the bait.<br /><br />If all you're doing is pointing out Behe's attitude toward biological evolution, there is no reason for you to get into discussing Dembski's work, but that's the commenter's strategy. Don't be suckered by this. We'll get around to Dembski eventually, but there's no need to deal with that here. What one thinks of Dembski has absolutely nothing to do with being able to quote Behe, and you should be careful not to get sucked into that trap.<br /><br />(For the scientifically adventurous, if you really want to know how seriously to take Dembski (that is, not very), I recommend <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/" REL="nofollow">this piece</A> over at TalkOrigins. That was going to be the subject of a future post but, what the hell, go wild. Have fun. Try not to break any of the furniture.)CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1108354172985873692005-02-13T23:09:00.000-05:002005-02-13T23:09:00.000-05:00"And how can they argue?"
You might want to try a..."<I>And how can they argue?</I>"<br /><br />You might want to try actually reading a whole book on intelligent design such as the Design Revolution by Dembski before trying to comment on a complex subject. How can they argue?<br /><br />How can you argue, if your arguments are just your brain events? Am I writing to the biochemical state of your brain at the moment? How did you pick up these silly memes that you write here? There does not seem to be much intelligence or design to them. Hey, don't worry, what I just said are naturalistic explanations and that's downright <I>scientific</I>!mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1108353939575926282005-02-13T23:05:00.000-05:002005-02-13T23:05:00.000-05:00"But they do not doubt that evolution occurred."
..."<I>But they do not doubt that evolution occurred.</I>"<br /><br />Yes, things are born, reproduce, and then they die.<br /><br />Evolution occurs...mynymhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07095211421748579139noreply@blogger.com