Posted: Aug 14, 2014 10:52 am
Rumraket wrote:William Dembski wrote:The mountains of evidence are already there. The problem is that evidence is itself inherently hermeneutical, influenced by cognitive predispositions to interpret certain types of data as supporting/confirming certain types of conclusions. If one wears materialistic blinders, there can be no evidence for ID hence the constant refrain by people like Barbara Forrest and Eugenie Scott that there is no evidence for ID. There is none for them because they have shut their eyes to it.
This one is simply brilliant, the exact same shit could be thrown right back at Dembski. The projection is reeking off it:
The mountains of evidence are already there. The problem is that evidence is itself inherently hermeneutical, influenced by cognitive predispositions to interpret certain types of data as supporting/confirming certain types of conclusions. If one wears creationist blinders, there can be no evidence for evolution hence the constant refrain by people like Bill Dembski and Stephen Meyer that there is no evidence for evolution. There is none for them because they have shut their eyes to it.
The difference is that when it's said in the opposite direction it is said without lying.
There are two lies in Dembski's quote above.
If one wears materialistic blinders...
Acceptance of evolution (or rejection of ID) does not require materialism.
...there can be no evidence for ID.
Of course there can. There's evidence for intelligent design everywhere. We're surrounded by it. We know what designed things look like and the type of things which point toward their construction. This includes in things like DNA where we should see, if ID is correct, evidence of tampering and fixing.
I'm sure Dembski is feeling a certain burning sensation in his nether regions.