I have debated many ID denialists (that’s what I call them now, since their argument is never based on evidence or logic). Whenever I point out the basic premises of ID theory, they call me a liar and ridicule me for not knowing anything about ID.
They always do the same thing: cherry-pick quotes to “prove” that ID proponents believe that ID refers to a god, refer to the Dover decision, then proceed to use motive-mongering, character slander, and simple denials.
The reiterate over and over that IDists conduct no science; when I refer them to the research, they simply deny it. If they cherry-pick a quote, I provide a full context that contradicts their characteriztion, they insist that the proponent in question was lying when they produced the quotes I refer to.
When I point out that this impeaches their own witness, they go back to ridiculing me.
And they do all this while completely admitting – and even being proud of the fact – that they have read absolutely no significant ID materials other than what is available on anti-ID sites.
It astounds me that people will adamantly argue against something, ridiculing it and smearing the character and reputations of others, without even bothering to give a significant reading to the material they vilify … and then insist that their position is the more logical and supportable, and that I – who have actually read the material – don’t know what I’m talking about.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A comment at Uncommon Descent: