Replies

I think evolution is a science. I also think that a few of its adherents have begun to worship it.

I get flamed by both sides on theses threads. But generally, the vast majority are from people who are traditional evolutionists, and are attacking me for advocating ID, which I'm not (although I'm feeling driven toward it just to spite them :)

I think evolution is a science. I also think that a few of its adherents have begun to worship it.

While that may well be true I'm certainly not one of those "worshipers." I'm perfectly willing to adjust my beliefs about just about anything, especially evolution, if and when a viable, rational and reasoned alternative comes along.

ID meets absolutely none of those criteria.

I think evolution is a science.

Correct.

I also think that a few of its adherents have begun to worship it.

Like who, for example? Be specific, and support your allegation. Otherwise, you're just issuing a broad over-the-top slur in a dishonorable manner.

I get flamed by both sides on theses threads.

Perhaps that should be a clue for you about the quality and tone of your posts.

But generally, the vast majority are from people who are traditional evolutionists,

...because the vast majority of your posts fling snide remarks at evolutionists instead of the other direction.

and are attacking me for advocating ID, which I'm not

The "vast majority" of posts do not do that, thanks for the misrepresentation.

(although I'm feeling driven toward it just to spite them :)

That would make you a troll. We'll keep that in mind as we evaluate your future posts.

the vast majority are from people who are traditional evolutionists, and are attacking me for advocating ID, which I'm not

That's a really funny thing to claim in a thread which YOU started in order to post an article ADVOCATING ID...

So when you claim that you're not advocating ID, are you a) being dishonest, b) that confused about your own posting history from five days ago, or c) telling us that you post advocacy articles you don't even believe yourself?

And no, your attempted "disclaimer" in post #1 doesn't get you off the hook, since you spoke approvingly of the contents of the article, thus endorsing its ID advocacy and its cheap attacks on evolutionary biology and its practitioners.

So don't act all confused and wounded and whiny about how people "attack" you for "advocating ID" when you haven't, because by posting the wildly partisan pro-ID article and saying that it "describes ID fairly well", you're personally endorsing a strongly pro-ID position. I just wish you'd be honest enough to stand behind it, instead of running away from your convictions and hiding behind a disingenuous facade of "open mindedness" and "research".

Your personal view on this matter has been made quite clear, here and in many other posts you've made. Stop trying to be coy about it, you're doing it so clumsily that no one's buying it, and it just makes you look puerile.