re: #63 Fozzie Bear

I challenge someone, anyone, to explain to me how I.D. is a theory at all. It is a claim against another theory, but holds no specific claims of its own. The concept of the “irreducible complexity” of complex life is self-contradictory, because it requires the intelligence of the designer to be emergent (and thus not irreducibly complex) in order for it to not be a theistic claim.

Frankly it gets me all fired up and angry, not because it is ignorance, that I can understand, but rather because it is inherently intellectually dishonest.

Actually it’s a way of reconciling the differences between religion and science. If you believe in a G-d, but still trust science, it’s a logical step forward. I’m not sure that you should waste anger on that…