tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post111722553350439777..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: BKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117601088410107012005-05-31T21:44:00.000-07:002005-05-31T21:44:00.000-07:00Gadfly,Forget the labels for a moment, and reflect...Gadfly,<BR/><BR/>Forget the labels for a moment, and reflect on the fact that only 38% of a group which is highly trained in science and biology were willing to say that human beings evolved in a 100% naturalistic way. <BR/><BR/>The choice for common descent via natural selection <I>only</I> was crystal clear. Sixty-two percent did not fill in that circle.<BR/><BR/>This is telling -- especiallyThe Dawn Treaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210183904763261892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117565144125009932005-05-31T11:45:00.000-07:002005-05-31T11:45:00.000-07:00Sorry Weekend Fisher. I confused you with one of ...Sorry Weekend Fisher. I confused you with one of the other contributors on this blog. That should have read "Jonathan Witt's and Dawn Treader's interpretation." I have no idea what your views on intelligent design are and apologize for the confusion.<BR/><BR/>GadflyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117560220693527462005-05-31T10:23:00.000-07:002005-05-31T10:23:00.000-07:00Gadfly said, "... Jonathan Witt's and Weekend Fish...Gadfly said, "... Jonathan Witt's and Weekend Fisher's interpretation of what constitutes the intelligent design camp". <BR/><BR/>Hmm. I'm fairly sure I've never posted my views on ID. That's a topic I usually leave to those more interested in it and who keep on top of the literature. The only somewhat-related post I've made on this blog is how little of the debate actually focuses on the Weekend Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10425001168670801073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117552422325369562005-05-31T08:13:00.000-07:002005-05-31T08:13:00.000-07:00"According to the responses to question 10, 58% of..."According to the responses to question 10, 58% of all respondents took the position that intelligent design is religiously inspired pseudo-science." Of course they would. That is the result of the actions of those in the hard-line Darwinist camp to paint it that way. They get most of the press and control how ID is viewed.BKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117510328272705742005-05-30T20:32:00.000-07:002005-05-30T20:32:00.000-07:00Thanks for pointing me to the poll questions. The...Thanks for pointing me to the poll questions. The way that the questions are asked is not very sophisticated. As far as I can see, the respondents are asked for their views, apparently without specifying whether they are supposed to be limiting themselves to the scientific evidence or include broader personal beliefs as well. They are asked either to either to affirm or deny a divine role in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-1117391425846335782005-05-29T11:30:00.000-07:002005-05-29T11:30:00.000-07:00Your "it would seem" in the fourth paragraph does ...Your "it would seem" in the fourth paragraph does not necessarily follow from the evidence you have given. You identify those that are unwilling to deny a divine role categorically as in fact positively asserting some divine role. What warrant do you have for this identification? It appears to be a non-sequitur, as they might be allowing for the possibility of a divine role without asserting itAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com