Subject: Dembski lying for God
From: steven@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr)
Date: 25/01/2004 5:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <40139fb3.378090@news.demon.co.uk>

Here is what Dawkins originally wrote

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1989-04-09review_blue print.shtml

'We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Notice that Dawkins explicitly states that he is NOT talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection , which he accepts that biologists can doubt.

Here is what Dembski wrote about this passage, as quoted in http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

'Dawkins has called ID theorists ‘a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters’, and claims: ‘it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).’ On the contrary, as Dembski writes: ‘one can be reasonably well-adjusted, remarkably well-educated (as many design theorists are), and still think Darwinism is a failed scientific paradigm.’

Dembski deliberately ignores what Dawkins wrote and twists it to mean the exact opposite of what Dawkins wrote, and Williams laps up what Dembski says.

Liars for God???? Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/

Dawkins does not even believe in God, so Dembski could not be possibly lying for God about Dawkins. This is another hypocritical attitude of the atheists. They claim there is ''no God'', yet they constantly claim theists ''lie for God''. Is it me, or do you also notice the nonsense which is so self-evident?