My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Evolution Weblogs Of Note

Daubert Expert Resources

Evolution Web Resources

  • Afarensis
    reality based humanoid's blog
  • Origin of Species Online
    For God's sake, read the dang thing before you proclaim any thoughts on evolution!! Now it's online at your fingertips. Go. Read. Then, pontificate if you must.
  • Talk Origins
    The master site containing the most comprehensive of evolution and anti-evolution sites and information on the web. A model example of how to really teach the controversy.

Junk Science Sites

Religous Critiques of Intelligent Design

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« Jonathan Witt contends for "Bagdhad Bob" Title | Main | Ann Coulter's Godless mess »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83456ce0969e200d8342aa11453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Traipsing into falsehood:

» Traipsing authors on BookTV Aug 26-27 from tw curricublog
Two of the authors of Traipsing into Evolution, will be on CSpan-2s BookTV this weekend in a 90-minute program airing 3 times: first at 7pm EDT Saturday, with final showing midnight Sunday night. ... [Read More]

Comments

Staauffenberg

But Jones, is saying the argument goes back "at least" to Aquinas, tried to characterize the design argument as an exclusively relgious argument.

So was that a lie?

Why are disagreements or errors always "lies" with you people?

Answer, because you want to demonize and marginalize the dissenters from the mainstream.

And old trick, that goes back "at least" to the Nazis!

Tim Makinson

"Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.”" I think that qualifies it as a "religious argument".

Ed Darrell

Staauffenberg, it's Witt who's claiming the problem. What is it with YOU people?

Joe McFaul

"But Jones, is saying the argument goes back "at least" to Aquinas, tried to characterize the design argument as an exclusively relgious argument."

That is indeed Jones' point.

Can you point to a non-religious use of the argument from design?

Ever?

So why didn't Witt address *that* argument instead of misrepresenting Jones?

He chose not to address Jones' actual argument because he can't rebut it. Instead he misrepresented it--that's dishonest, don't you agree? Or are you seriously suggestignthat Witt only made an unintentional mistake?

But you feel free to go right ahead and list a non-religious argument from design.

The comments to this entry are closed.