But now that you remind me, I'm accusing you of twisting words around, distorting the truth, and giving solidity to pure wind.
What did highball distort? You said that ID isn't scientific. That's what we on the evolution side have been saying all along.
Thanks for the backup. I'm still trying to figure out what I did to deserve the personal attacks - he said ID wasn't scientific, and I agreed.
Go figure.
To be fair, he or she may have specifically been referring to the emotional response to a child's face as non-scientific. But I can understand how it could be confusing, given that it appeared that he or she was using that as evidence in favour of ID, and an explanation that relies upon non-scientific "evidence" is typically itself non-scientific.