[Coyoteman]

Let me tell you something: we don't need more intelligent, geniuses with puffed up self-centered esteem. Or perhaps the tiny clenched-fisted temper tantrums of a minority should not be listened to because they're just too tiring to deal with, eh? I have none less than 5 links to those asking for prayers for what I'm certain your rational, reasonablness of various categorizations of philosophical sciences can meke everybody feel good.

I am not sure what the prayers "5 links" means...

The rest of your post is a study in logic, while ignoring the facts.

You trash my post #5 as a "Genetic Fallacy on the unwashed masses" but you offer no substantive rebuttal. Here is the post:

All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

But there you encounter the problem: ID is religious belief masquerading as science. It has made a lot of claims, but it has produced no evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Even Behe has backed away from most of his earlier claims.

Look at the efforts of the Dyscovery Institute in support of ID. Check out their blogs. Most are authored by lawyers, with an occasional English major or journalist for diversity. Where is the science? What a joke!

Are you claiming that ID as "dissent" brings scientific evidence?

Are you claiming that ID is not religious belief masquerading as science?

Are you claiming that ID has produced evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny?

Are you claiming that Behe has not backed away from most of his earlier claims in his recent book?

You have spun a long and interesting post on the rules of logic, but you have not linked that logic to the real world (my post) in any substantive way.

Good debate tactics, but lousy science.

We are back to where I started: All "dissent" needs to do is bring evidence -- scientific evidence.

[RussP]

“Are you claiming that ID as “dissent” brings scientific evidence?”

You wouldn’t know “scientific evidence” if it bit you on the rear end.

“This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” —Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia

“Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us.” —Lord Kelvin

“The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.” —Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel-laureate physicist

“So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. ... The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.” —Sir Fred Hoyle, British astonomer, from a lecture in 1982 (1824-1907)

[Qwinn]

I wouldn’t go bragging too much about how you’re not getting the responses you’re looking for (or imagine you’re not), considering you haven’t replied to a single point I made in post #32. I’m guessing it has something to do with not being able to dismiss everything I say on the basis that I’m religious.

Qwinn