First, you devil’s advocacy is actually considerably more articulate and thought out then even the least ignorant ID advocate. Second, the most K-complex theory of all is that some mind designed everything.
Attacking the science is WAY easier than defending ID. We should always make sure to distinguish between the two things when talking to creationists. Most of their “arguments” are exactly of this “have the cake and eat it too” variety (cake=attack evo, eating=defend ID afterwards).
First, you devil’s advocacy is actually considerably more articulate and thought out then even the least ignorant ID advocate. Second, the most K-complex theory of all is that some mind designed everything.
True. I should have clarified: in that particular debate I was simply attacking the science, not defending ID.
Attacking the science is WAY easier than defending ID. We should always make sure to distinguish between the two things when talking to creationists. Most of their “arguments” are exactly of this “have the cake and eat it too” variety (cake=attack evo, eating=defend ID afterwards).
Is it? You haven’t seen me be a devil’s advocate for ID yet, have you? ;-)