Quote mining is a method inherited directly from Creation Science. I'm sure the more perspicacious IDers are disappointed that ID in its first decade has failed to advance beyond this. But then isn't this is to be expected when one puts conclusions ahead of the evidence?
You know, in my line of work, when someone doesn't understand the technical underpinning of something, yet act like they do, they get FIRED. Columnists who don't bother to understand the technology that they're spouting off about are usually likewise on the curb. Because geeks suffer enough people who get by on their looks and schmoozing alone. When it's up to them, they damsho' don't invite any more of that behavior into their Universe.
Moreover, I can't help but notice that when Grandpa can't connect to the Internet to email the pictures from his digital camera, the odds of him taking advice from his pastor are pretty negligible.
Why? 'Cuz the Bible ain't a technical manual. And nobody pretends that it is. Heck, there's a book called "Numbers", but nobody considers the Bible a math textbook--or even that pi = 3, King Solomon's bathtub aside.
Yet the slightest whiff of the notion that our deeply flawed species isn't the center of the Universe, and wham! Out comes Scripture.
@#$%^&* that. No exceptions, bub. Figure out how to deal with ALL the knowledge (and its ramifications) that science brings WITHOUT cherry picking. And hold your "research" to the same standards of rigor and objectivity as every scientist worth his/her lab coat is expected to live by. Or go back to living in caves. No compromise. No middle ground. Put up or shut up. That simple.
Pity that more of the world isn't run like the meritocracy that computer science often is. The worthless parasitic gits at the DI certainly wouldn't be in a position to sneak their drivel into schools if that were the case.
"Ignorant, stupid, or dishonest is no way to go through life."
Hey, if you're going to quote me, get it right! You left out "drunk."
Dean Wormser
I think Dembski makes a relevant point. However, it is not the first time that a proponent of atheism made an admission regarding the inadequacy of mutations to help create macroevolution. Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. - source of Mayr quote is the following http://www.creationscience.com/
o...andNotes10.html
I wrote in the above post the following:
"I think Dembski makes a relevant point. However, it is not the first time that a proponent of atheism made an admission regarding the inadequacy of mutations to help create macroevolution."
My apologies. I meant to write the following: I think Dembski makes a relevant point. However, it is not the first time that a proponent of evolution made an admission regarding the inadequacy of mutations to help cause macroevolution.
Commenting by HaloScan
