Intelligent design
Out of context: Reply #388
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- KuzII0
hi discipler. thanks for replying.
I think you missed my point. You said:
"You conveniently neglect to mention the scores of numerous others who are agnostic ID proponents"
My point was in reply to that, because i haven't come across ANY agnostic ID proponents (let alone the scores that you claim! lol). Every single one seems to have a religious agenda. I mean, i'm not arguing that religious zealots aren't good enough to achieve science and philosophy degrees, far from it. I was just being specific to the ID debate, that instead of being this, you know, "movement" that's taken mainstream science by storm - ID seems to be the cause celebre of the usual suspects - you know the devoutly religious theologian scientists that are Dembski, Meyer et al
Do you see what i'm getting at? I'm not for a second saying that Dembski didn't go to univeristy and get a Phd, and Meyer got some too. Just, i don't see any agnostics championing ID... anywhere. This is essentially why i think ID's a dishonest movement.
ok? :)
*kisses