This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Behe's Empty Box

SPS's Avatar Jump to comment 9 by SPS

Pardon me for recycling part of my post on Dinesh D'Souza's blog entry with a slight edit:

I know some here have been making assertions about science in defense of their faith. I am curious. Would you be as comfortable making these claims in an auditorium full of evolutionary biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc? Would you be open to being shown incorrect?
Some have posed that intelligent design/creation make sense, because certain things are 'impossible'. Why do you then credit a creator in doing the impossible whose methods you do not know, and who believers readily admit they cannot comprehend? Why do you not allow for the first, and allow for the second? Why are you searching for an evidence based god? If evidence is important then where does that place the importance of your faith? Would you still believe without "evidence". If you would believe without evidence doesn't this reveal you as biased against it?
A yes or no answer will suffice for most of these questions, but answer as you wish.

Sat, 14 Jun 2008 16:08:00 UTC | #183486