Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 04:39:14 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:00:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:21:45 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<invalide@invalid.invalid>:
>

Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 17:41:22 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:
 

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:24:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

As I said, "This post is not an opportunity to dive down the hundred
rabbit holes that this overview touches on." The micro/macro question is
_the_ evolution debate.

>
Simply clarifying whether you accept that humans are members of the
ape family, all evolved from a common ancestor, or whether you think
humans were created separately as a standalone species doesn't involve
any rabbit holes.
>

Of course it doesn't. If this discussion were a football
game (US type), he'd be a star receiver; he can weave and
dodge with the best of them.
 
(Still waiting for that info regarding the "Increased
traction" for ID...)

>
>
Here it is:
>

Yeah, that was my take, too:
>
1) Assert.
2) When asked for evidence, ignore or waffle.
3) Reassert.
>
Lather, rinse, repeat.

>
>
To give the devil his due, MarkE clarified that the "increased
traction" to which he referred is not among scientists or science but
instead is among the general population in the U.S.
>

OK; thanks. I missed that, although why he thinks that's
significant escapes me.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov