Unfortunately due to his voluminous writing about not only evolution, but the arguments used by evolutionists, finding a "favorite riff" written by Dembski is a challenge, even with the help of google. Yeah, I didn't recall that there was any "dictum" either.
I don't recall Christ ever telling Christians to conflate promulgation of the Gospel with correcting every error in the thinking of man, particularly when said error is functionally irrefutable.
Error may collapse of its weight on the basis of internal contradiction, in which case the thing refutes itself, but no error is "functionally irrefutable." Error is always refutable by Truth.
Jesus is the ... Truth, ... (John 14:16); Paul writes that we are to put on the whole armor of God and to stand (Ephesians 6:13); "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, ...." (2 Timothy 3:16).
Stand for Truth. Correct error.
Do you agree?
Mastering the skill of rebuking logical fallacy and poor argumentation begins with having ready access to those sources from which one intends to quote in order to make their point.
FReegards!
...no error is "functionally irrefutable."You obviously don't understand the modifier, nor the concept of "invincible ignorance."
That's the only explanation available for such a doctrinaire statement.
Jesus is the ... Truth, ... (John 14:16); Paul writes that we are to put on the whole armor of God and to stand (Ephesians 6:13); "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, for correction, ...." (2 Timothy 3:16).
None of which addresses the question of whether Christ commanded you to engage in fallacious argumentation (switching the meaning of terms in mid stream) for the aggrandizement of your religious self-esteem.
Mastering the skill of rebuking logical fallacy and poor argumentation begins with having ready access to those sources from which one intends to quote in order to make their point.
Pot, meet the kettle.
I'm not familiar with the official ranking authority that found not having a quote handy, of lesser rhetorical value than engaging in sophomoric non sequiturs.
For myself...I've been in enough ID/evolution debates to know exactly what Dembski was referring to; it is utterly asinine to try to discuss Algebra with a student who knows only Arithmetics, and so "knows" you can't do sums with "letters."
The whole thing invariably devolves into "my science is bigger than your science" match.
