[betty boop]

...those who blindly believe science are fools. But science is science. Trying to package it with supernatural is fraud.

Where/how do you draw the line between the natural and the supernatural?

Indeed, how do you even define these terms?

I think some clarity is required here, before you accuse me of fraudulently "peddling 'intelligent design' as 'science.'"

BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays. So I have nothing to peddle here.

In current usage, these terms are just so many sticks with which to beat an opponent. Ad hominum attack is a most useful way to avoid substantive discussions on the merits: It's often easier to impugn and "disqualify" an opponent than it is to answer his arguments.

Of course, such tactics are intellectually dishonest, revolting, thuggish, and cheap.

[shibumi]

"BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays."

Allowing someone to brand you with these two terms is akin to entering a political debate wearing a swastika.

Their are purposefully abused by those who seek to denigrate opponents to evolutionary fraud.

[kosta50]

Where/how do you draw the line between the natural and the supernatural?

So, now you don't know the difference? Reaching for straws, I see. Is God natural? Is God subject to natural laws? Is God part of the existing world? Are you still not sure?

I think some clarity is required here, before you accuse me of fraudulently "peddling 'intelligent design' as 'science.'"

This is out of context with my response in #217. There was nothing personal in it. Good try bb. More straws to grab.

BTW, I do not identify either with "intelligent design" or "creationism" as these terms are conventionally understood nowadays

Fine, please tell us what do you identify with?

It's often easier to impugn and "disqualify" an opponent than it is to answer his arguments

That was exactly what I walked away from in our last thread.

Ad hominum attack is a most useful way to avoid substantive discussions on the merits:

I am glad you realize that, bb, except that it is pointless to discuss "substantive merits" with supernatural things being presented as "facts."

[metmom]

Scientists and evos constantly infringe on the supernatural when they make definitive statements about it, like mocking belief in God, saying that He didn’t create life on earth but it evolved, etc. They talk out of both sides of their mouths.