Over at UD, Dembski makes a post about "Pro-ID doctors", linking to a list of physicians and surgeons denying the favourite made up word of creationists (macroevolution).
However, it seems that Dembski has failed to read the actual statement these doctors signed because it quite clearly states: "This does not imply the endorsement of any alternative theory."
I wonder if someone could please explain how "does not imply the endorsement" is infact, endorsing ID?
Perhaps Dembski is just falling prey to that nasty case of contrived dualism that's infected creationism since its outset.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
