Replies

Dogkins is just as wrong in thinking Science supports atheism as Dumbski is in thinking that ‘suppressing’ his work (by denying the imprimatur of Baylor University) is somehow an “offense of the Gospel”.

Let's put things in proper perspective... BTW before I continue, let me correct you again --- Dembski NEVER SAID nor did he ever mean that suppressing his work is an offense to the gospel. He meant that their suppression is SIMILAR to what the authorities in the first century did when they tried to suppress the spearing to the gospel. I have to call you on this and if you repeat this, I'll repeat this as well.

Now on to the perspective. I happen to agree with the spirit of what you said regarding Dawkins and Dembski.

Their personal motivations are a side issue to the SCIENCE they present. If being sympathetic to the Wedge Document and being sympathetic to the Atheist Alliance disqualifies the evidence you try to present, then I guess it disqualifies say, Republicans from presenting evidence about Joe Wilson's lies about the circumstances behind his trip to Niger simply because their agenda is to support President Bush.

Whether or not Joe Wilson lied about his trip SHOULD BE VALIDATED OR INVALIDATED BY THE EVIDENCE AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT REPUBLICANS SUPPORT BUSH.

Similarly, being sympathetic to the Wedge or the Atheist society is a SIDE ISSUE that should not obscure the EVIDENCE for or against Darwinism and/or Intelligent Design.

That has always been my point when someone tries to bring up the Wedge issue. My reply is still the same SO WHAT ?

If you want to convince people, critique the scientific study and don't sidetrack us with peripheral issues. And while we're at it, don't suppress work being done to present evidence. If you want what you believe is an ill-conceived theory or idea to die a deserved death, there is no better way to do it than to hear what the proponent has to present and then critique it using EVIDENCE, OBSERVATION and REASON. Supporting suppression only INCREASES suspicion that your opposing idea might not have as much merit after all.

Does this mean that Dumbski thinks his work IS the Gospel?

Here is an easy answer to this strawman -- NO. And I am 100% certain of that.

Or that his work supports the Gospel?

Not necessarily. Even if we were to prove that the Intelligent Designer is a god, that is thousands of miles from showing that Jesus Christ is God. That's why Dembski doesn't even go there. It is people like you who insist on going there for reasons I think I know but would rather not discuss.

The new testament and Revelations of Dumbski?

Nope, the imaginative interpretative musings of some people regarding what they believe are the revelations of Dembski.

That guy is an absolute joke who cannot even figure out when data has been normalized.

Well, let's see your detailed critique of his papers and see where the joke lies. We'll be waiting for the meantime.

I think we will have to disagree to disagree.

On the issue of Dembski equating his suppression to suppressing the gospel ? ABSOLUTELY.

But I am not one who disagrees with someone simply for the sake of disagreeing. If I agree with what you said and believe it is reasonable, why should I say I disagree ?