This is a nice paper. Although I don't really take a stance on the ID issue, the use of "Intelligent Design Creationism" is an obvious, and cheap, rhetorical sleight of hand. This is almost as bad (well, probably not) as P.Z. Myers' Cortier's Reply. As atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg states in his recent article Dawkins’s Gambit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity concerning the Reply: "...if one intends to disprove God's existence, it is hardly reasonable to dismiss criticism's of one's putative disproof on the grounds that God doesn't exist anyway."
1 comment:
This is a nice paper. Although I don't really take a stance on the ID issue, the use of "Intelligent Design Creationism" is an obvious, and cheap, rhetorical sleight of hand. This is almost as bad (well, probably not) as P.Z. Myers' Cortier's Reply. As atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg states in his recent article Dawkins’s Gambit, Hume’s Aroma, and God’s Simplicity concerning the Reply: "...if one intends to disprove God's existence, it is hardly reasonable to dismiss criticism's of one's putative disproof on the grounds that God doesn't exist anyway."
Post a Comment