Let me just say that I never figured that you thought I was "refreshing" or "enlightened". I'm guessing, although I can't tell for sure, that the "sock puppet" charge relates to you disbelieving my "unbeliever" status. I get that alot from ID critics.

Again, for me, that is all part of the fascination for me of the Meta-discussion. ID critics are good ad at hominems based on no evidence. Although they claim to speak from a position defending logic, rationality and facts, it usually doesn't show.

ID critics impute both irrationality and religious motivations to IDists, so if one supports ID, or aspects of it, and claims to be non-Christian or irreligious, the sock charge is dictated to conserve the stereotype. Macht recently posted a blog entry on an atheist with favorable views of ID. Berlinski is not a theist. These are rational people.

Have you read Mike's book? I think you'd like it.

I haven't yet. The only book on ID I've read in the last couple of years was Behe's 2nd. My intellectual energies have moved on to other issues for the most part. I've thought about buying his book, and Berlinski's latest, but have a little bit of a backlog on my "To read" list for now.

But I agree, when ride is no longer fun, it's probably time to move on. There are plenty of other things to do with one's life.

Maybe we can agree on the fact that further dialogue between us doesn't appear to hold much chance of being productive. I will accept my part of the blame for that.

I'll address the last paragraph of your post.

I’ll add an opinion. I don’t believe you are a “refreshing” enlightened “unbeliever.” It doesn’t make it through my nixplanatory filter. I think you are a sock puppet.

Let me just say that I never figured that you thought I was "refreshing" or "enlightened". I'm guessing, although I can't tell for sure, that the "sock puppet" charge relates to you disbelieving my "unbeliever" status. I get that alot from ID critics.

Again, for me, that is all part of the fascination for me of the Meta-discussion. ID critics are good ad at hominems based on no evidence. Although they claim to speak from a position defending logic, rationality and facts, it usually doesn't show.

But, they also will stand to reap that which they sow.

You have never met such a creature? John Morris, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind are three that come to mind immediately.

Science must be very fragile in your mind if what these folks do is considered an attack. As far as I know you won’t find any of these folks claiming that science is evil or that Christians should avoid it. They just think the reigning paradigm is incorrect. By that definition Copernicus attacked science.

Pushing ID into the science classroom when it is not science is an example of an attack on science.

I agree that ID should not be taught in the classroom yet, but a public school science classroom is not “science”. It’s where science is supposed to be taught.
Talking about the teacher’s favorite TV show in algebra class might not be the best use of time but it is not an attack on Math

Casting science/methodological naturalism as the evil "materialistic ideology" is an attack on science.

Deriding methodological naturalism is not an attack on science because methodological naturalism is not science just ask Isaac Newton or the researchers receiving Templeton grants.

Claiming that a scientific program has a "big tent policy" is an attack on science, because science is a meritocracy, not a big tent.

Evolutionary Biology has a “big tent policy” how else could you have folks advocating punctuated equilibrium and folks advocating gradualism both claim to be evolutionary biologists. If this kind of thing is an attack on science shouldn’t the gradualists try and “expel” everyone else for the sake of the children.

Really David, your life would be better if just relaxed and didn’t assume that disagreements about facts were attacks on your precious science and by implication God.

The fact that you do explains why folks like you work so hard to silence those who disagree.

Peace

Or have Dembski and Wells succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that ID is necessary to explain life? Given that life exists, this would be nothing less than a scientific proof of ID. In that case Dembski and Wells will win a Nobel Prize, and many of us will eat a ton of crow.

It bears remembering that there is no experimental evidence showing that a cell is the end product of a series of extracellular reactions. That means the issue is open ended with respect to solutions. It is interesting that in spite of our knowledge of cellular biology and genetics we are unable to construct a self-replicating cell from scratch.

I'm not worried.

Why should you be David? If Dembski were to be successful, along these lines, would that bother you?

I have yet to meet such a creature.

You have never met such a creature? John Morris, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind are three that come to mind immediately.

This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere by decisively demonstrating the need for intelligence in explaining life’s origin. This is the best overview of why traditional origin-of-life research has crashed and burned and why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell.

Now, I wish this were true. But we'll have to wait and see. Are these promises nothing more than a new round of exaggerations, also known as lies, and hence, as they are masquerading as science, constitute an attack on science? Or have Dembski and Wells succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that ID is necessary to explain life? Given that life exists, this would be nothing less than a scientific proof of ID. In that case Dembski and Wells will win a Nobel Prize, and many of us will eat a ton of crow.

I'm not worried.

Christians who attack science are, in effect, proclaiming God to be a god of confusion.

Could you give an example

I have yet to meet such a creature. Even the most backward fundamentalists that I know of respect science as a means of learning about God and his creation.

What Christians attack is among other things
Certain metaphysical implications incorrectly drawn from science

The idea that material science is a magic crystal ball that explains everything leaving no need for special revelation

The worship of science to the point of assuming it is the savior of mankind.

Science like theology is neutral it’s the scientists and the theologians who are not.

Peace

Yes, science was ordained. Theologians generally accept the concept of two complementary revelations, special (the bible) and general (nature.) Catholics would add a third (sacred tradition.) The study of special revelation is theology; the study of general is science. It would be hard to argue that one was ordained and not the other. In addition, God proclaimed the material realm good—a perhaps unique doctrine among the world’s religions which generally cast the physical as an illusion or evil. That fact that it is good implies that studying it (science) is also good. Finally, as I know you know, scriptures explicitly state that the heavens declare God’s glory, and those who ignore the attributes of God in nature do so at their own peril. I could go on, but that is tantamount to ordaining science, unless you think that the heavens declare God’s glory, but woe to them who study the heavens. And not appreciating creation puts men at risk and yet studying creation also puts men at risk. Christians who attack science are, in effect, proclaiming God to be a god of confusion.