slevesque writes:
But what is really more interesting in this thread is how blatantly illogical the reasoning in the OP is, and yet no atheist/evolutionist here bothered to tell you you were wrong. Everything is fine as long as you can bash ID in the process it seems, and who cares about basic logic!
I'll admit that I like discussing ID, and that the primary entertainment in doing so is exposing the inevitable flaws in logic required to defend ID as science. For me the fun ends when the proponent elects instead to defend ID on religious grounds.
My personal opinion is that there was little point to this thread, because we all know why IDers assume a single designer. I'll note that Frako's question was answered about one or two posts into the thread. But despite the logic blunders, Frako does get to what little point there is.
The controversy is not that ID proponents insist on a single designer, but that some of those proponents pretend that there is nothing religious about ID when it is only religious belief that mandates a single designer.
Frako's logic errors are, IMO irrelevant as is his entire OP. Dembski's and Behe's logic errors are both relevant and entertaining. If we get to discuss those things here, I'm all for it.
™ Version 4.2
