Replies

GourmetDan,

It's obvious neither of us can convince the other.

You're a creationist (..."evolution over creation", your words), and I'm not.

Biology has rebuked creationism as a junk science. The Supreme Court has ruled that it cannot be taught in the public science classroom (Edwards).

But, this is America, and you're free to believe whatever you want. In closing, please know that I support your right to believe in creationism. Also know that I will not support any attempt on your part to play word games and attempt to get creationism into the public science classroom.

PS:

I'm surprised that you chose to respond to my request with a rhetorical question.

I quote your original post and my response, as follows:

You: Sorry, that [Professor Minnich's testimony that for intelligent design to be considered science, supernatural forces must be considered in science] is just incorrect. Supernatural forces do not have to be considered, only intelligent ones. Me: Please send an e-mail to Professor Minnich and tell him what you have just told me. Please give me an example of how an intelligent being can design the life that we know without being considered supernatural. Thank you.

Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that both Judge Jones and Professor Minnich are mistaken. Don't tell me, tell the professor. If your anger made you unable to see that, my apologies.

"It's obvious neither of us can convince the other."

It's also obvious that you have no arguments other than the fallacy of appeal to popularity. "Everyone believes this!"

"Based on what you wrote, you seem to think that both Judge Jones and Professor Minnich are mistaken. Don't tell me, tell the professor. If your anger made you unable to see that, my apologies."

The point was that you appeal to authorities because they support your beliefs. You rely on these authorities because you don't understand the issues well enough to defend your beliefs with reasoned arguments.

You completely misunderstand the effect that an 'a priori' commitment to naturalism has on your beliefs. It is a purely metaphysical belief and would never allow you to recognize a created biology if you were looking at it. As such, it is totally inadequate as an absolute arbiter of truth (which is how you use it). Your inability to understand that argument shows how credulous your belief really is.

That you must project the emotion of 'anger' onto me in order to dismiss my arguments again shows how immature your critical-thinking skills are. That's not anger son, it's just the truth.