Saturday Fun: Adapa’s DDS on Display

_{Barry Arrington
November 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Sometimes an example of Darwinist Derangement Syndrome (see UD’s glossary) is just too delicious to allow it to languish deep in a comment thread. Here’s an exchange between Adapa and WJM in the Way Forward thread:

First, Adapa claims that science has “conclusively demonstrated” that unguided evolution can produce observed diversity of life:

Adapa @99:

. . . science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today . . .

@ 587 William J Murray disagrees and says unless a P(T|H) calculation can be made for a naturally occurring biological phenomenon “evolution cannot be vetted as ‘unguided.’”

@ 590 Adapa then says it is “idiotic” to demand that science prove that unguided forces are sufficent:

This bit of idiocy seems to be WJM’s latest favorite – the demand that science prove evolution isn’t guided.

And that it is dumb to ask science to prove a negative:

Why an armchair philosopher would be dumb enough to demand science prove a negative is anyone’s guess.

But, in the first quote, that’s exactly what Adapa claims science has done – proven the very negative he claims is stupid and dumb to expect science to do! Adapa claims science has proven that evolution is unguided, and when WJM asked him to show him where, Adapa says that it is stupid and dumb to expect science to prove evolution is unguided!!

Comments

Learned Hand has learning issues:
There’s nothing grudging about it–we assume that natural forces, from gravity to random mutation, are unguided.
Gravity is only natural in the sense it exists in nature. In that way all artifacts are also natural. We cannot jusr assume all mutations are random. That would be assuming the very thing we need to determine. BTW the sinkhole is evolutionism. The positive scientific case for guided evolution has been made. But you cannot see it from your ever-growing sinkhole.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

I think his post and much of what Keith & Learned Hand say and the way they say it is indicative of something else – they really don’t comprehend that what they are saying is nothing more than a metaphysical assumption (note Learned Hand’s begrudging admittance); and the way they defend those assumptions by using ridiculous comparisons is in fact a demonstration of how deeply, intractably committed they are to their a priori metaphysical worldview. They actually don’t see how anyone can think there is a qualitative difference between what we find in biology and what we find when we pour salt from a shaker, as head-scratching as that is to the rest of us.
There's nothing grudging about it--we assume that natural forces, from gravity to random mutation, are unguided. We've been very explicit and forthcoming about that. If you don't like an analogy, it's better to explain why the analogy is wrong than just complain that you don't like it. "I'm incredulous!" is not a very good argument. "Scientists don't support their assumption that X is unguided." X could be "random mutation" or "natural selection" or "gravity" or "radiometric decay" or "salt coming from the shaker." What supports carving one of those out of the list, other than the fact that you really don't want it to be there? Arrington has a facially reasonable argument: ID has given everyone cause to reexamine the assumption. We disagree about whether his argument has any strength, but at least he's gotten past the bizarre sinkhole you're digging for yourself (and in which even the Joes of the world are reluctant to join you).Learned Hand_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

HeKS @124
To say that the mutations are “random” is to say that they aren’t guided or purposefully determined or directed.
We don't know that and you can't prove it. What we see as random may well be guided and directed.Silver Asiatic_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

HeKS @124: Great post and you nailed it about what ID advocates are talking about if they agree that some aspects of microevolutionary success are sufficiently explained by natural forces. I've already pointed this out to Keith when I used the analogy of building a rocket that goes to the moon; while the designers of the rocket make use of natural forces, and while natural forces are sufficient to explain some aspects of the rocket's path, "natural" and "random" forces are insufficient to explain the (1) existence of the rocket in the first place and (2) the instantiation of the course and adjustments to the course and various other rocket events orchestrated for a successful trip to and landing on the moon. I was in the process of making an O.P. that in part addressed this particular assertion of keith's, but it looks like you've got it covered. I look forward to your O.P. I'll keep my O.P. focused on the convenient, inappropriate, dismissive comparisons that Keith and Learned Hand keep using. KF already addressed this once with his Rain Fairy post, but I wanted to approach it from a different angle. Also, great breakdown of Adapa's statement. I didn't catch that. I think his post and much of what Keith & Learned Hand say and the way they say it is indicative of something else - they really don't comprehend that what they are saying is nothing more than a metaphysical assumption (note Learned Hand's begrudging admittance); and the way they defend those assumptions by using ridiculous comparisons is in fact a demonstration of how deeply, intractably committed they are to their a priori metaphysical worldview. They actually don't see how anyone can think there is a qualitative difference between what we find in biology and what we find when we pour salt from a shaker, as head-scratching as that is to the rest of us. Box @132, Keith's comparisons are all rhetorical in nature, designed to elicit maximum ridiculing effect. The pity is that every time he makes such a comparison, he is insisting that the complex, precision-tuned, ode-generated and operating system-regulated machinery we find in a cell is qualitatively the same as the pattern salt makes when it falls on a table. and that anyone who challenges keith to support that position is worthy of summary dismissal through contemptuous comparison. At this point keith has realized that he was caught making an assumption where he claimed knowledge, so now he apparently wants to defend the assumption by insisting it is ridiculous to assume anything else about the causal necessities required to generate what we find in biology and by weaving a self-serving narrative to frame the debate. All this amounts to is dismissing and ridiculing the core argument of ID; that what we find in biology is in fact, qualitatively not the same as what we find when we dump salt out on the table. If keith is going to insist others accept assumptions that render the core ID argument ridiculously invalid, why bother pretending your argument is in good faith?William J Murray_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

F/N: On Rain Fairies, saltshaker leprechauns etc and insistent strawman tactics vs the design inference process, cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/fyi-ftr-what-about-onhs-vs-invisible-rain-fairies-salt-leprechauns-and-planet-pushing-angels-etc/ KFkairosfocus_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

WJM @117: If the “unguided” aspect of evolution is an assumption, keith, you cannot “know” what “unguided” evolution can produce, and if it is an assumption, science certainly hasn’t conclusively demonstrated what it is capable of.

Keith @119: Of course it’s an assumption, William

WJM @121: Apparently, keith thinks that assumptions are the same thing as knowledge. Keith, do you know that unguided evolution exists, or do you assume it?

Keith @122: Do you know that Shamu the Invisible Toilet Whale doesn’t exist, or do you just assume it?
Obviously Keith doesn’t differentiate between supported and unsupported assumptions – he never does. Keith doesn’t understand that evolution only deserves the predicate ‘unguided’ when it is conclusively demonstrated that its alleged mechanisms (random mutation and natural selection) are capable of producing all the fancy stuff in life. Since it is highly questionable that RM + NS are capable of producing even a single functional protein, there is little or no support for the predicate ‘unguided’. And yes Keith, there is also little or no support for the existence of Shamu the Invisible Toilet Whale. However the question is why you think that this helps you to turn unsupported assumptions into facts. You should know by now that it doesn’t work that way.Box_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

keith s:
I can’t prove that microevolution is unguided, any more than I can prove the absence of toilet whales, because science doesn't deal in proofs.
No one wants you to prove anything but you don't have any supporting evidence. We don't need to have toilet whales but unguided evolution is totally impotent- that is what the EVIDENCE says. keith s is so dull he doesn't even grasp the basics of science. There is positive evidence that evolution, including microevolution, is guided. That is what we go with wrt science.Joe_{November 24, 2014
November
11
Nov
24
24
2014
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Keith, Alright, I'll try to work one up tomorrow (I'm not sure if I might add to it ... it will depend on timing). The first part of the comment is nonetheless open to discussion since it is related to this thread specifically.HeKS_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

HeKS, I vote for a new thread so that thread content remains aligned with thread title.keith s_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Keith S Biology itself refutes Keith's assumption, again I reiterate PCD is an unguided evolution stopper.Andre_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

Goodusername, I love by this mantra.......... Test everything, hold onto the good. So I will never ever just take the word of anyone that sayz so....... Test it!Andre_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

Keith S You can of course easily be the winner of this discussion the moment you produce a single instance where the blind workings of matter managed to build a single protein..... Please don't assume it just demonstrate it, ID is falsified and Keith S is king of the hill.......Andre_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

Goodusername No, I'm highlighting the fact that Keith S himself admits that he can't trust what he has to say, so I'm only asking; If he does not trust himself how must we do so? This is not about trusting somebody that tells you to trust them.... It is about Keith's own admittance that he does not even trust himself.... Get it?Andre_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

This conversation about Adapa's comments seems very strange to me. Adapa originally said this:
science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today
But in comment #5 of this thread he says this:
I never said or implied that science had conclusively demonstrated evolution is unguided. I said it’s conclusively demonstrated that observed evolutionary processes can account for the variety in biological life, which they can.
The claim is evidently that the first does not mean the second. A conversation has then ensued about it being silly to ask someone to prove that evolution is unguided. This just all seems misguided to me. Let's look at the first quote again:
science has already conclusively demonstrated that the observed natural process of random genetic variations filtered by selection and retaining heritable traits is sufficient to produce the biological life variations we see today
The claim here is that natural processes have been conclusively demonstrated by 'science' to be sufficient to produce all the biological life variations we see. Which "natural processes" would those be? Adapa said it was random mutations filtered by [natural] selection. To say that the mutations are "random" is to say that they aren't guided or purposefully determined or directed. And natural selection has always been set against artificial selection, which is selection guided by intelligent, purposeful intent. Therefore, to say that all "the biological life variations we see today" have been "conclusively demonstrated" by science to be sufficiently explained by the 'natural evolutionary processes' of random mutation and natural selection is to say that all the biological life variations we see today have been conclusively proved by science to be sufficiently explained by an evolutionary process that is unguided. That is what Adapa's comment necessarily means. Now, from an ID perspective, the response you're going to get from the vast majority of people is not that these processes simply look unguided but aren't really. They're going to say that the whole claim Adapa made is absurd, that even many committed atheist / materialist scientists would say it's wrong, and that even most Neo-Darwinists would disagree with it. The Neo-Darwinists would disagree because the statement effectively claims that the random mutation / natural selection (RM/NS) mechanism is the only evolutionary process at work and explains everything. Other atheist / materialist scientists, like those involved in a Third Way, would say that (RM/NS) is largely ineffective at doing much more than keeping things the same, accounting for very minor fitness gains, and weeding out really detrimental changes. And the ID people would say that the stuff they invoke design to explain does not seem within the reach of non-teleological processes and would quite rightly point out that 'science' has never demonstrated that RM/NS can even come close to explaining these things, which is why you have even people who are not sympathetic to ID at all looking for new and better theories of evolution. Now, when it comes to this business of proving that microevolution is unguided, I think there needs to be an understanding of what it would even mean to suggest that it is "guided". I'm reasonably certain that the majority of people who would dispute claims that microevolution is unguided do not mean that a designer is actively, in the moment, effecting a specific microevolutionary change. Nor would they dispute that random mutations happen. Rather, they would likely dispute that all mutations are random. And they would also likely argue (as I did in the previous thread) that the constrained allowance for - and even rapid increased initiation of - mutations and general genetic and epigenetic changes are a purposeful aspect of the design of organisms to allow for diversification and adaptation (which is sometimes very rapid). If the random variation or shuffling is too large, however, it kills the organism, makes it sterile, or at the very least reduces its reproductive potential, decreasing the chances that the significant defect will be passed on or largely affect subsequent generations of a population. In other words, the argument is not that random mutations allowing microevolution look unguided but are actually being directly manipulated by some designer. Rather, the argument is that 1) the RM/NS mechanism is a constrained feature of organismal design, and that the Neo-Darwinists are looking at a design feature of a system that makes use of randomization and illegitimately extrapolating it to explain the entire system itself; and 2) that not all mutations/changes are random at all, but some are internally directed in a purposeful manner for the benefit of the organism. So, it seems to me that, from an ID perspective, saying something like, 'even IDists admit unguided evolution exists', is either A) a case of making a trivial claim that cannot be legitimately extrapolated from the kinds of microevolutionary changes that are seen (overwhelmingly degrading genetic information and/or narrowing genetic variability; breaking or blunting existing biological function for a net fitness gain) to the kinds of macroevolutionary innovations that are theorized (the introduction of complex, functionally-specified systems and molecular machines), or B) a case of making an unwarranted and unsubstantiated claim that the system that allows for and makes use of the RM/NS mechanism for the benefit and diversification of the organism does so by fluke, in a way that is fully unconstrained, and is itself undesigned; or C) both. P.S. The last three paragraphs ended up relating largely to what I started out saying about parts of Keith's argument in the last thread (though I didn't start out intending the tie-in), so people can let me know if they think I should just use that as the core of a new OP. If so, let's not bother hashing out that part of the comment here, since in that case it would be better to discuss it in the new (hypothetical) thread.HeKS_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT}

Andre
If you can’t even trust your own mind (your declaration)how on earth are we to believe you? You can’t be certain about what you say so why should we?
Interesting, so you only trust people who believe themselves infallible? Someone claiming such a thing would have the opposite effect on me.goodusername_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

William, Do you know that Shamu the Invisible Toilet Whale doesn't exist, or do you just assume it?keith s_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

One of keiths assertions in his argument:
3. We know that unguided evolution exists.
WJM @117:
If the “unguided” aspect of evolution is an assumption, keith, you cannot “know” what “unguided” evolution can produce, and if it is an assumption, science certainly hasn’t conclusively demonstrated what it is capable of.
Keith @119:
Of course it’s an assumption, William
Apparently, keith thinks that assumptions are the same thing as knowledge. Keith, do you know that unguided evolution exists, or do you assume it?William J Murray_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:49 PM
9
09
49
PM
PDT}

Keith S If you can't even trust your own mind (your declaration)how on earth are we to believe you? You can't be certain about what you say so why should we?Andre_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Of course it's an assumption, William -- but only in the same sense that all of these are assumptions: 1. The Rain Fairy doesn't exist, and meteorology is guided by the laws of physics. 2. Invisible leprechauns are not guiding the salt grains onto my french fries. 3. Shamu the Invisible Toilet Whale is not shaping the swirls in my toilet. For the third time: The reason other IDers don’t challenge this assumption is because they’re smarter than William. They don’t want ID to live or die by the same logic as Shamu, the Invisible Toilet Whale. They want it to be scientifically respectable. I can't prove that microevolution is unguided, any more than I can prove the absence of toilet whales, because science doesn't deal in proofs. But lacking any evidence for guidance, the sensible thing is to assume its absence. Your smarter fellow IDers (except for Box :-) ) realize this, which is why they don't believe in the Rain Fairy or insist that microevolution is guided. Compound your error if you like, but many of your fellow IDers will be rolling their eyes at you and Shamu.keith s_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

It is fine that unguided evolution is an/ the assumption. However when the assumption is being challenged you cannot use the assumption as some sort of defense.Joe_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT}

Keith from #112

WJM: Both Adapa and Keith are erroneous in their assertions about what we “know”, or about what has been scientifically demonstrated, about “unguided” evolution.
That’s incorrect. You were wrong, William. The reason other IDers don’t challenge this assumption ...
Unbelievable. Apparently keith doesn't realize that his admission that his position is an assumption (on the unguided aspect of evolution) completely vindicates the very statement he quoted of mine and then said is "incorrect". If the "unguided" aspect of evolution is an assumption, keith, you cannot "know" what "unguided" evolution can produce, and if it is an assumption, science certainly hasn't conclusively demonstrated what it is capable of.William J Murray_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Obviously keith is ignorant of biological processes because James Shapiro has a book of guided processes involving genetic change. Dr Lee Spetner has a testable hypothesis- since 1997- pertaining to guided microevolutionary change. keith, your ignorance is not a refutation. It is entertaining thoughJoe_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand:
So ID’s failure to convince those experts makes me suspect its claims aren’t true.
And yet those "experts" don't have anything to offer in the way of a scientific explanation for our existence. So what is their expertise, exactly?Joe_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Keith
Silly Box. Did you assume that if beak variation were constrained, that would require any underlying mutations to be nonrandom?
You assume trillions of things, - it's a sickness - you are beyond help. So it's of no surprise that with Finch beak variation you assume mutations. Why rule it out, right? Me ... I don't assume any mutations at all.Box_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

You made a silly mistake that other IDers are smart enough to avoid.
That struck me, too. This is an enthusiastic crowd, with lots of piling-on whenever circumstances permit. This particular stance has even Barry Arrington carefully marking out what minor points are worth defending; the core insistence that we all prove our negatives before going to work has landed with a deafening lack of applause from the UD regulars.Learned Hand_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

William J Murray:
Both Adapa and Keith are erroneous in their assertions about what we “know”, or about what has been scientifically demonstrated, about “unguided” evolution.
That's incorrect. As I've been reminding for you almost two weeks:
Sure, microevolution might be guided. The grains falling out of my salt shaker might be guided by invisible leprechauns to their final resting place on my french fries. Raindrops might be gathered, shaped, and dropped by the Rain Fairy in a precise pattern. The swirl of water in your toilet bowl might be guided by Shamu, the invisible Toilet Whale. But anyone insisting on these things would be justly regarded as a loony. There is no evidence that these things are guided, so intelligent people rightly regard them as unguided.
You were wrong, William. You made a silly mistake that other IDers are smart enough to avoid. As I said: The reason other IDers don’t challenge this assumption is because they’re smarter than William. They don’t want ID to live or die by the same logic as Shamu, the Invisible Toilet Whale. They want it to be scientifically respectable. Put your mistake behind you and start looking for a better objection to my argument.keith s_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

Learned Hand said:
The assertion that random mutation and natural selection are unguided is an assumption–proving it would be proving a negative.
We are in agreement, then. Both Adapa and Keith are erroneous in their assertions about what we "know", or about what has been scientifically demonstrated, about "unguided" evolution.
You can complain that I’m taking that position “as a matter of faith,” and that it “cannot be scientifically, conclusively demosntrated as claimed,” and I guess that’s true.
Of course it's true. Any reasonable person has no option but to admit this. It's really not a big deal unless one is so intractably committed against ID that they don't want to admit even the most obvious, trivial point an IDist makes.
That’s why the logical and practical convention is not to make extravagant assumptions, such as that an unseen designer designed everything using unknown methods and materials for an unknown cause, unless there’s a reason to make that assumption. For some people, religion is such a reason. Others claim that math or empirical evidence give them a reason to make that assumption (although the rest of us think religion is still at the root of their position).
Entirely irrelevant to the point. I've made no assumptions or assertions on behalf of ID; all I've done is challenge the assetions keith and adapa made.
But you’re complaining that scientists aren’t trying to prove the negative regardless of ID’s claims.
No, I've never done this. I've asked you, keith and adapa to point out where science has provided the research necessary to support the assertions adapa and keith made. You've extrapolated that into some "complaint" I've got against "science" in general, and into the false notion that I'm demanding that science disprove ID. Once again: all I've done is ask adapa and keith to support their assertion. As you now admit, they cannot, and you cannot do so on their behalf because what they are asserting wrt to "unguided" forces is, ultimately, nothing but an assumption.William J Murray_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

Box #107:
If the variation in beak shapes in Darwin’s Finches is “far from random” for what reason should anyone assume that microevolution is unguided in general?
Silly Box. Did you assume that if beak variation were constrained, that would require any underlying mutations to be nonrandom? Also, don't forget to answer my question: Do you think WJM is "rotten to the core"?keith s_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

BA,
It is staggering that you’ve been participating in this exchange for two days now and you haven’t grasped WJM’s position (far less refuted it). WJM was responding to Adapa, who asserted that science has falsified ID by conclusively demonstrating that natural forces behind evolution are unguided.
WJM has been quite articulate about his complaint that materialists are not vetting the assumption that natural forces are unguided. You can be as nitpicky as you like about what prompted him to take that position, but it doesn't change the position.
You and WJM are in basic agreement about the substance of the issue. He just goes one step further and says, “therefore Adapa was wrong when he said that science has conclusively demonstrating that natural forces behind evolution are unguided.” Surely you agree that science has not conclusively demonstrating that natural forces behind evolution are unguided. So why is it so hard for you to take that last step with WJM?
I'm going to fall back on the same analogy: would Adapa have been wrong if he had said that science has conclusively demonstrated that gravity is unguided? Possibly under an absolutely strict logical analysis, but not by the standards of the way actual human beings communicate. I think it's completely fair to say that it's been conclusively demonstrated that natural forces, including gravity, radiometric decay, and natural selection, are unguided. And yet it's also completely fair to rely on those assumptions until someone comes up with a serious challenge to them. Your approach seems to be to say that ID has mounted such a challenge, which is a perfectly normal approach. But WJM says it doesn't matter what ID's claims are, scientists are responsible for vetting their assumptions regardless. Which, if applied consistently to scientific endeavors that don't offend his ideologies, would basically be a show-stopper. You want to run trials on a new antibiotic? Don't skip steps—you should first demonstrate that this microbial growth isn't intelligently guided! Science doesn't work that way, industry doesn't work that way, nothing works that way. Some assumptions are perfectly reasonable to make, as long as they're properly provisional.Learned Hand_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

I guess if no one can disagree until everyone agrees, there goes any hope for revolutionary progress.
Nope. You can shove as hard as you like, but those words don’t fit in my mouth. You are welcome to disagree! The fact that the experts find your opinions unpersuasive doesn't make those opinions wrong or invalid. But as a non-expert myself, the opinion of the vast majority of those people who understand the issue the best is generally a good guide to what is likely true. So ID's failure to convince those experts makes me suspect its claims aren't true. (As does its failure to actually demonstrate the validity of those claims by detecting design, or treating its ideas like serious scientific concepts through active internal criticism and open debate.)
What you fail to realize, of course, is that this sort of blatant status quo power down is a replay of the Church/Galileo affair. And you are playing the role of a prince of the church.
Nope. You can shove as hard as you like, but that martyr's coat doesn't fit on your shoulders. ID is welcome to test its ideas whenever it likes! Its failure to do so is not the result of persecution. Nor is anyone preventing IDists from publishing, lecturing, teaching, or otherwise disseminating their ideas. It's the internet age, no one could suppress you if they wanted to.Learned Hand_{November 23, 2014
November
11
Nov
23
23
2014
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply