Well, look at the material we have to work with. In the present thread, we're discussing an article by a creationist professor of comparative religion and sociology, at a major Christian university, who seems to have committed an egregious piece of academic fraud. One would think that having spent a career extolling the need for religion in society, he would himself at least acquired a habit of truth-telling, if only not to discredit his cause by his own actions. Evidently not though.
Doesn't this worry you?
Doesn't this worry you?
________________________________________________________
No. Because I don't care what the truth is on this. I jsut want to know what it is and I find lots of BS on both sides as I've said. But it bothers me.
If I follow the Olsen thing and you are reporting it correctly and if that is indeed the passage stark is working from then his piece icnludes a downright misconstruction of another persons writings.
I've tried to listen to the evolutionists on this and find them as dishonest as you find the creationists. I've read Dawkins and he is really an ass. He's doing your side no good. His bit about the computer generated insects in Blind Watchmaker is laughable.
I also got a book buy a guy named Tim Berra from Ohio State about the Myth of Creationism. In there he lists some of the direct benefits of evolutionary theory including development of more productive strains of crops. Excuse me? You don't need any knowledge of evolution to develop hybrids. What a Goddam liar as you put it. So how much hay can I make of this. Here I've read two celebrated scientists addressing the issue and they are full of it.
I'm not looking to prove evolution wrong, I'm not looking for its worst proponents, I'm looking for the best, and none of them address the best arguments of the ID side. At least not that I've found.