What do you think about their response?
Please stay focused on the substance of the article. Do not bring up other issues, such as their logo design, in this thread.
1 Like
Probably not a surprise, but I didn’t find anything to disagree with in the response.
1 Like
The Fox article was not a survey of beliefs, it hardly seems fair to complain all other viewpoints were not represented. It’s not like ICR fairly represents the modern understanding of evolution at all. Rather than “no choice”, GAE and Craig are offering new choices.
Otherwise, there isn’t much response here, just the usual talking points and conflating of religion and science.
5 Likes
I do think their point about BioLogos is correct but it’s also totally out of place. Neither WLC or I are with BioLogos, and the same certainly can’t be said of Peaceful Science.
2 Likes
Still citing Parsons, Tomkins, and Jeanson?
Do you suppose ICR has the capacity to feel shame, or have they just grown numb to it?
7 Likes
I never quite know what to make of them. Their completely bizarre complaint in their lawsuit against the State of Texas was pretty much like one long stream of dictation from Ted Kaczynski (executive summary: “To be, or not to be. That is the gzzornenplat.”). Does shame require coherent thought? If it does, I’d say they don’t have the capacity.
2 Likes
I tried to be generous and find at least one statement I agreed with. Alas, I failed miserably 
2 Likes
You need to try harder. There certainly are true statements in that article.
How about:
The Lauren Green television interview with astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross also had very little (if any) hard science.
3 Likes
Obviously I disagree with @thoughtful. That’s not news.
but there are some true statements in the article. It’s hard to produce an article, even intentionally, that has zero true claims. That’s the only point I was making to @Chris_Falter .
See what @CrisprCAS9 found for example. 
What???
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.