I will suggest to you that waving the bloody shirt of religous extremism of centuries well gone by, is tiresome.
Automatically writing yourself into that history as being on the side of the good is worse. The 20th century saw the murder of between 50 and 100 million people by secular governments. Governments that swore to protect their people from the evils of religion, among other things. Governments that outlawed religion. Personally I am more frightened by those that hate religion than the religious. I might have felt differently in the 15th century, and differently again in he 12th century, but hey I live in the 21st century. As far as your demands for proof. That is funny you offer none whatsover for you views, you simply defame religious people in the name of an incomplete and highly edited historical perspective. Than you wave your arm and demand the names of ten scientists that have published serious articles with numerous qualifiers supplied by you. You haven't done it and neither will I. In any case your entire response was just littered with bad prose lurid imagery of people being burned at the stake, etc. and isn't worthy of a line by line refutation
You mean, sort of like claiming over and over that scientists are persecuting IDers, because they won't let them teach ID in high school?
Automatically writing yourself into that history as being on the side of the good is worse. The 20th century saw the murder of between 50 and 100 million people by secular governments. Governments that swore to protect their people from the evils of religion, among other things. Governments that outlawed religion. Personally I am more frightened by those that hate religion than the religious.
The church genocided Anabaptists, Muslims, Gnostics, Jews, Witches, and Albigensians--and that's without the help of modern methods of accounting, record-keeping, transportation and warfare. There is nothing that was done in the prison camps of Germany that outshone the Inquisition for cruel and ingenious ideas for murdering your theological opponents as slowly, painfully, and degradingly as possible.
As far as your demands for proof. That is funny you offer none whatsover for you views,
Science doesn't operate on proof. Yet proof is what is required if you want to proffer an ID claim that you can see a mysterious hand at work, absent any positive forensic evidence whatsoever.
you simply defame religious people in the name of an incomplete and highly edited historical perspective.
What religeous people did I defame? The catholics? The catholics officially condone Darwinian evolutionary theory as of 1996. Calling a schism of christianity that believes things that are preposterous, in the light of contemporary science, cranks--is the truth. And truth is an adequate defense against charges of slander. I have defamed no major religeous group as a whole, and you owe me an apology, or a counterdemonstration of my claim of innocence.
Than you wave your arm and demand the names of ten scientists that have published serious articles with numerous qualifiers supplied by you.
Numerous qualifiers? How numerous, exactly? You mean, refereed publication? Golly, what a stern taskmaster I am.
You haven't done it and neither will I.
I cite every scientist that has ever published a refereed paper in the journal of micro-biology.
Tell you what. Cite me 5, other then Behe, Hoyle, and, giving you the benefit of the doubt, Dembski,-- actual research scientists who've published a popular book on the subject, enumerating the scientific data that supports ID, and explaining why it does.
In any case your entire response was just littered with bad prose lurid imagery of people being burned at the stake, etc. and isn't worthy of a line by line refutation
We're fairly accustomed to stealth creationists who haughtily declare themselves the winners in a battle they couldn't locate on a map if they tried.