It’s not much fun having to wade through so much fallacy-ridden nonsense, but someone has to do it every now and then. I’d put all of this to Bill at his own website but we all know how comments are screened for evidence and logic, and if the results come back positive the comment is quickly quarantined and expelled.

He also claims that ID is “all worldview and no evidence”. Many would argue that this is certainly true of philosophical naturalism, scientism, and much of Darwinism.

“Philosophical naturalism” is a strawman. Science does not presuppose philosophical naturalism. Science operates according to methodological naturalism, seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena, or demanding that natural explanations be ruled out absolutely before “supernatural” explanations can be considered. Why? Because this approach to doing science works. It’s not a question of prior philosophical or ideological commitment: it’s simply a question of pragmatism. If Bill thinks “God did it” leads to better results, it’s up to him to demonstrate this. No-one on his side of the argument has been successful thus far.

Such is the animus against God, that many intellectuals have simply ruled him out a priori.

Strawman number 2, by way of false dichotomy. If Bill thinks God counts as a scientific explanation for x, he needs to show the evidence that this is so. Not believing in God due to the lack of evidence, and not considering God as an explanation for a given natural phenomenon does not constitute having an “animus against God.”

Militant atheist Michael Shermer . . .

And Bill complains about ad hominem attacks . . .

Again, as Colson reminds us, not all who are critical of Darwinism or are supportive of ID are religious, yet Shermer just tries to make this a battle between religion and science, a typical atheist trick that does not get one very far.

Ahem: “There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch a higher power, and it can’t possibly touch God” (Ben Stein, Expelled).

Nobody expects the Darwinist Inquisition.