David Kellogg- Still Choking on the Big One
Ove on OgreMKV's blog David chimes in with:
The key equivocation in all the definitions that come from the IDC community is the word certain: “certain structures,” “certain features of the universe and of living things,” “certain natural phenomena.” This word allows IDC to be infinitely elastic and to reduce its claims when handy: you can think everything evolved naturally ever except for, say, human self-awareness, and IDC will claim you for one of their own.
But of course ID’s claims are much more than such modest statements suggest. IDC says they can tell, scientifically, which among these “structures” etc. are designed. When it wants to, as in the definitions above, IDC will say all we’re doing is applying existing methods to natural pheneomena — what’s the big deal? Meanwhile it defines evolution as being incredibly arrogant, creating a strawman version of what evolution means (and — in case kairosfocus is reading — adding a little ad hominem, a few red herrings, and a lit match).
The equivocation is all dave's as IDC only exists in the minds of the willfully ignorant.
Methinks Dave doesn't understand the word equivocation. Intelligent Design does not say that everything is designed and IDists tell you what those certain features are.
And yes we say we can determine what is and isn't designed. and guess what? to refute any claim of design all YOU have to do is step up and demonstrate necessity and chance are all that is required. Shit the explanatory filter mandates that your position be given first crack at a solution.
And finally Dave accuses us of creating a strawman version of what evolution means- and again without any evidence to support the claim.
So how about it Hermy? What strawman have we created? Please be specific.