Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul by Ken Miller

So do Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.I don't think anyone is trying to censor you, I think they are meerly disagreeing with your position. You would do better by showing specifics of where exactly you found a problem with what Miller said. If you are going to make assertions without providing evidence then rightfully so people are going to make assertions about your knowledge on the subject.Just food for thought.I personally have only read "Finding Darwins God" by Ken Miller, in which he does take issue with ID and the edition I have has the details of the Dover case. I have however, watched the video and would be curious to see where you have found problems with the evidence that he presents.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This comment completely evades the reply offered. I have read Miller's book, have you? Non-sequitur.We all know what it means when points are ignored.My opponent then continues to produce one stupid non-sequitur and contradiction after another, here is a sample:Ray (previously): Why is there a Evolution-ID debate?Opponent: There isn't. If you look at the literature, you don't find any discussion of "ID" because there has never been any evidence put forward for it.Ray: The issue was that evolution says both attributes are not seen in nature. Creationists-IDists disagree. Opponent denies the central purpose of this debate board and the debate that has been going on since Darwin 1859.Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" (2006).Ray (previously): Why does every evolutionist here and everywhere vehemently protest any scientific claim that says nature reflects either attribute?Opponent: They don't. They simply demand that you show your work and not assert it to be true. So far, you have not provided any specifics.Ray: Opponent denies a self-evident fact: evolutionists argue against ID tooth and nail----exactly what Rrhain has been doing. The contradiction here is egregious or the same is evidence that my opponent is a scatter brain.Ray (previously) I agree: evolution says there is no evidence of ID.Opponent: Incorrect. It isn't evolution that says there is no evidence of "ID." It is science that does it.Ray: Opponent denies then agrees. Of course, from an objective perspective, opponent is quibbling over nothing.I am not seeking to depart the topic subject as per the rules of this board. Have you read Miller's book?General Reader: the replies by my opponent in these exchanges prove that the ordinary evolutionist is completely dishonest or ignorant or deluded since it is a self-evident fact that evolution denies nature to contain Intelligence and Design. Again, the Creation-ID-Evolution debate is the central purpose of this debate board as seen in its name "EvC Forum."Ray

Either you haven't read the exchanges or you are an evolutionist brown-nosing the pro-evolution Moderators and Site controllers.Ray

Every message should have some obvious connection to the book in the topic's title. No connection - risk a suspension.Adminnemooseus

---

Cold Foreign Object responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

...and this would be where you provide specifics. How many times do I have to ask?

---

​

This comment completely evades the reply offered.

---

And still, no specifics are given. How many times do I have to ask?On page xyz of Miller's book, he says, "...."At wx:yz of Miller's video, he says, "...."That's what a "specific" means. So far, all you've done is assert general, vague comments. No discussion can be had because we don't know what you're talking about, why you have come to the conclusion that you are asserting.How many times do I have to ask?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

{Message content "hidden" (use "peek" to see). 24 hour suspension issued (see two messages up). - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Content hidden, my messaged added, suspension done.

Great book! It is an easy read (compared to some of Dawkins somewhat hard to read, though very informative text).

---

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan