My responses are in bold type.
1
Mytheos
November 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Darwinist labs pride themselves on seeming to be legitimately scientific programs. They show off their shiny PhD-brandishing experts, and they sneak their religious ideas in under the guise of appealing to bones found all over the world, which are extremely seductive at first glance.
The academic community has long known of the real history and motives of the Darwinist movement, and because of this, it routinely places Darwinism in the same category as creationism and subjects it to a similar mocking.
Since when does the "academic community" mock "Darwinism"?
2
JDH
November 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I love how in all these rants by committed evolutionists the implicit ( and sometimes blatantly explicit ) assumption is to consider ID as a propaganda program. Never does he consider it from the standpoint of a legitimate competing theory of how we got here.
A mind is a horrible thing to close.
ID is NOT a "legitimate competing theory", and ID is absolutely, positively a religious and political "propaganda program". The ToE is about a lot more than "how we got here", and you godbots are the ones with closed minds. Is that "blatantly explicit" enough for you?
3
Collin
November 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I am so tired of arguments based on the supposed motivations of the proponents. Maybe the rest of the article had more substance, but Scanlan’s attack against the “real motives” of the ID movement is really tiresome.
But you're obviously not tired of you IDiots basing your arguments on the "supposed motivations" of science/ToE proponents. You are the ones with dishonest motives, and your lies and blustering are really tiresome.
4
Barb
November 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Questioning the motivations of the person making the argument is a logical fallacy; intelligent, rational people should know better than that.
Then why aren't you chastising "News" (o'leary), yourself, and the rest of the IDiots for not only "questioning" but constantly attacking the alleged motivations of persons making arguments in favor of science and the ToE? Obviously you and the rest of the IDiots are not "intelligent, rational people".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-darwinist-tries-to-understand-the-durability-of-the-intelligent-design-community-and-gets-something-right/comment-page-1/#comment-410535
1
Mytheos
November 28, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Darwinist labs pride themselves on seeming to be legitimately scientific programs. They show off their shiny PhD-brandishing experts, and they sneak their religious ideas in under the guise of appealing to bones found all over the world, which are extremely seductive at first glance.
The academic community has long known of the real history and motives of the Darwinist movement, and because of this, it routinely places Darwinism in the same category as creationism and subjects it to a similar mocking.
Since when does the "academic community" mock "Darwinism"?
2
JDH
November 28, 2011 at 5:00 pm
I love how in all these rants by committed evolutionists the implicit ( and sometimes blatantly explicit ) assumption is to consider ID as a propaganda program. Never does he consider it from the standpoint of a legitimate competing theory of how we got here.
A mind is a horrible thing to close.
ID is NOT a "legitimate competing theory", and ID is absolutely, positively a religious and political "propaganda program". The ToE is about a lot more than "how we got here", and you godbots are the ones with closed minds. Is that "blatantly explicit" enough for you?
3
Collin
November 28, 2011 at 5:29 pm
I am so tired of arguments based on the supposed motivations of the proponents. Maybe the rest of the article had more substance, but Scanlan’s attack against the “real motives” of the ID movement is really tiresome.
But you're obviously not tired of you IDiots basing your arguments on the "supposed motivations" of science/ToE proponents. You are the ones with dishonest motives, and your lies and blustering are really tiresome.
4
Barb
November 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Questioning the motivations of the person making the argument is a logical fallacy; intelligent, rational people should know better than that.
Then why aren't you chastising "News" (o'leary), yourself, and the rest of the IDiots for not only "questioning" but constantly attacking the alleged motivations of persons making arguments in favor of science and the ToE? Obviously you and the rest of the IDiots are not "intelligent, rational people".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-darwinist-tries-to-understand-the-durability-of-the-intelligent-design-community-and-gets-something-right/comment-page-1/#comment-410535
