Reply #102: For all I know

[aneerkoinos]

You maybe right about ID... or wrong. Impossible to say, because you have offered no evidence, and I'm basically ignorant about ID, not even really interested, being supporter of evolution theory.

What I have been going on is, what is my stupid question is this: Why don't the (so called) supporters of science show the minimum requirement of benefit of doubt when the supposed "other side" agrees to play the scientific game, why don't the side that is supposed to be better, show example on how the game is supposed to be played and this way encouradge dialogue instead of culture war, and most of all, WHY ON EARTH do they insist on disrespecting or misunderstanding the scientific method itself by their own dogmatism, by the way they act?

...unless they are what they oppose, dogmatic believers in one truth, in this case mechanistic materialism?

Naturally the believers will deny they are such thing, but what is one supposed to think, when their behaviour, when asked to show benefit of doubt and basic respect to other "metaphysical" assumptions besides mechanistic materialism, is often identical to fundamentalist evangelians when their beliefs are challenged? Denial, ad hominem arguments, refusal to discuss, just few of the defensive mechanisms I've counted on this thread from various co-locutors. My position, if I have one, is that there is lot of room for scientific exploration between belief in mechanistic materialism and belief that some absurd creator god-guy created it all - nothing more, nothing less.