I'll see your Grishak "critique," and raise you one rebuttal: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2228&program=CSC%20Responses&printerFriendly=true
Why am I using Poker terms? Do the link.
you know, I'm not a scientist (although I do have a degree in biology with grad-level coursework in recombinant DNA, cellular biology, etc.) I'm a lawyer. For years I've made my living dissecting what people say and how they say it.
Stepping back, I see a consistent tell-tale signal from NeoDarwinism apologists:
Their arguments against ID are almost universally peppered with ad hominem attacks and a sophomoric use of adjectives that would make even the nominally trained writer cringe. Their tactics alone are indicative that their arguments derive not from an objective sceintific plane, but rather from a very subjective, emotion-laden midframe.
What is especially amusing is that these "intellectuals' seem to believe they have risen above such basic human influences, unlike the "religious fanatics" they denounce. Their obvious blind spot should be enough to make any objective observer question their arguments and motives from the start.
The DI "rebuttal" is frantic hand-waving, and misrepresents much of the PandasThumb refutation of Meyer. Is that the best you've got? It's too long to bother with a complete deconstruction, but feel free to list what you consider to be the top one or two points it makes, and I'll address those to show you how they actually stand up under examination. And if those *best* points fall flat, what does that say for the *rest* of them?
I'm a lawyer. For years I've made my living dissecting what people say and how they say it.
Let us know when you want to discuss the actual issues, instead of engage in rhetoric over trivialities like "how they say it".
Stepping back, I see a consistent tell-tale signal from NeoDarwinism apologists: Their arguments against ID are almost universally peppered with ad hominem attacks and a sophomoric use of adjectives that would make even the nominally trained writer cringe.
*Ahem*. Would you like me to list, say, 1000 recent posts from creationists which are "peppered with ad hominem attacks and a sophomoric use of adjectives"? Are you *really* going to sit there with a straight face and attempt to assert that this behavior comes from the "NeoDarwinism apologists" alone, or even primarily? Because if so, you're going to be laughed off the stage.
So you can drop the "more in sorrow than in anger" act, along with any "conclusions" you might try to pull out of a hat based on your "observations", since if the evolutionists "obviously" have a weak case because they fling personal remarks, then that goes *double* for the ID/creationist folks. Be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot there, counselor.
Their tactics alone are indicative that their arguments derive not from an objective sceintific plane, but rather from a very subjective, emotion-laden midframe.
*yawn*. Speaking of the ad hominem fallacy, fella, you just tried it here: "the evolutionists' arguments are weak because they're meanies". I hope you don't try transparently bogus stuff like this in the courtroom.
And again, that (goofy) argument cuts both ways -- be careful you don't slice an artery on the creationist side with it, since they're more consistently vicious than the evolutionists. And if you attempt to argue to the contrary, I'll be glad to wager real money with you on the proposition just to make it worth my while to prove you wrong.
What is especially amusing is that these "intellectuals' seem to believe they have risen above such basic human influences, unlike the "religious fanatics" they denounce.
ROFL!! Wow, that's remarkably silly. Thanks for the giggle. Okay, I'll bite -- exactly where has any Freeper evolutionist ever claimed to have "risen above such basic human influences"? You're just making this stuff up as you go along, it's hilarious.
Sure, we're just as human as anyone else. Thus we get justifiably outraged when the creationists use misrepresentations, dishonest tactics, fail to retract bogus arguments after they've been soundly refuted (and then *reuse* them a day later), etc.
Again, I hope you don't try this high school "debate" stuff in court.
Their obvious blind spot should be enough to make any objective observer question their arguments and motives from the start.
...and your obvious attempt to argue from a premise which is an outright falsehood is duly noted, which makes *this* observer question your integrity and/or competence.
So get off that high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. And drop the pompous "tut, tut, I am the voice of reason, pointing out the barbaric ways of my opponents" tone, it's just silly.