Then archeology, forensics, and SETI are not a science for you? They have a methodology for falsification but a good skeptic would ask how falsification is valid if it can't it self be falsified. Yet you seem to overly regard falsification so here is a method that falsifies the search for specified complexity... It is called neo-Darwinism. Are there limits to what evolution can do? Can it account for all emergence from eukaryote to the symbiosis of a host of biological entities that had to co-develop? Neo-Darwinism is worshiped as a science that has shown god/s unnecessary. But the quasi religion of naturalism is not only against God but is against science as bottom up emergence means that our faculties are in no way reliable beyond the four F's of Feeding, Fighting, Flight, and Reproduction. So as products of the primordial slime you have no higher cognitive ability then needed in the 4F's. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-scienc... There is no strawman to our meat-puppet status if naturalism / materialism is true. We have competing worldviews do we not? I was once an atheist who did become skeptical of pure skepticism and the poverty of verificationism. --I look forward to your list, for presumably it differs from the above. -- The strawman in this article is that there must be a requirement to have counter sympathies. Do science journals populate the peer review staff with with those who have Luddite sympathies? Anti-scientists or anti-evolutionists? In fact ID recognizes evolution and sees the explanations that are emergent complexities yet also recognizes that there are limitations to this. We are not meat-puppet chordates like the naturalists would have us believe. ID is a poor argument for God though as any intelligent organic gardener will do. This intelligence if powerful enough need not be the least efficient in design either. So what is there to fear from this scientific endeavor that most definitely uses the scientific method. Peer review today seems to be more about censorship then science lest the wrong flavor of science be given credibility and an egalitarian place at the free and open market place of ideas.

Sweet! So the fact that your review lacks any objectivity is not a problem amiright?? Any neo-Darwinist can't be objective about ID so you have a stalemate aye? The religion of neo-Darwinism can not be questioned and is in deed a circle jerk if it will not allow ID or any ideology that is not atheistic. If the neo-Darwinist had nothing to fear then you would not have the issue you present. But if science shakes the foundation for atheism then it must be bias and be rejected at all cost right??

Let's all show support for a free and open marketplace of ideas by giving NPR the freedom from government funding that it needs.

I am waiting for the proper UN designation. The territories formerly known as the United States is getting a bit old. I mean what do you put on your activity form? TFKAUSA? The governments wants to care for me and keep track of my health and moments so why make the process so difficult?

What?

I will be keeping my VW Diesel. I just don't understand the true cost to own a hybrid.

It looks like our government will not cease to fail in managing the economic crisis.

Deener I wonder if you see the cleverness of your own obfuscation. It is clear you wish to attack me directly or at least have me make my own claims, Instead I point to more knowledgeable sources for the wealth of evidence for God. You are not going to really fool me by professing a two way dialog is sufficient.

Many atheist claim there is no apologetic that is good enough. When I refer to
the website of Rich Deem and get your anticipated response I know you are
closed to the wealth of evidence for God

http://www.williamlanecraig.com/

Perhaps you could consider other sources for the wealth of evidence for God.

Or are you closed to evidence for God?

.

If you don't care then there is no reason to debate it.

Please school me in the art of epistemological divides and how we are all more alike then we are different yet are so divided on an ideological plane. You claim you are a theist then also claim not to understand so it begs the question of what flavor is your theism?

I believe atheism is so ludicrous as to demand evidence and then change the goalpost at will.
I believe atheist do not understand how humanity is devalued by a godless worldview.

These are clearly subjective opinions on my part based on my experience with militant atheists. That does not mean I can't also see this in some of my fellow theist.

My point is that with out God we are all there is. If we are all there is then we have no real transcendent value. We destroy this worlds ecosystem. We don't understand that for our every action there is a multiple of ecological reactions.

Think in terms of a secret that where to get out would be instantly harmful. Atheism is saying in its solipsistic rejection of God that we are as valueless to this planet as mosquitoes. The default idea of a godless worldview is that complete genocide of the human race could occur and there would be no consciousness left to mark of morn our passing.

So while individual atheist can have a high value to life and the human race it means nothing if there is no God out there who sent His Son here to redeem us all if we only believe in Him. I understand that any individual can hold all of humanity in the highest of value but that is all for nothing with out a Creator to give ultimate justice and reward to us all.

What you take as my refusal to engage in debate is ultimately all for naught if we all snuff it due to an asteroid or other earth obliterating catastrophe. See the point is that other then self derived anything there is no eternal or absolute with out God. Science can betray us as soon as new evidence arrives and all could be relativistic in a postmodernist sense if there is no bed rock absolute of a God who created all this and in such a way that we all evolve and grow with what is now the curse of the tree of knowledge but will be the redeeming salvation of Jesus Christ.