Could some friendly (and polite) Panda Thumbers, go over to Does Intelligent Design have merit at Opposing Views? The Discovery Institute is in need of some better qualified ID defenders and I am certain that PT’ers can do a better job than what has been presented so far. And I do not even count the ‘Hovind was framed’ arguments or the Pascal wager fallacy or the ‘Eonic effect’.
To be honest, I feel a tiny bit sorry for the Discovery Institute and ID proponents who have tried so hard to present an argument but, faced with the facts, could not really respond.
For instance, Behe attempted some rebuttals and was pwned by Nick Matzke. Could someone help Behe formulate a response as he seems to be lost for arguments and has decided to ignore Nick’s scathing comments.
Casey Luskin’s best performance was in wishing me a good weekend of rest, and Jay Richards showed why theologists should be careful when addressing real science when discussing the scientifically vacuous topic of Intelligent Design.
I am having a lovely time, but perhaps a few could go over and vote on the issue? The sad news is that you need to sign up. But the rewards of seeing the ID proponents expose the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design…