If you’re presenting the “truth” should not you include the fact that pastors, reverends, and preachers are not virtuous beings as well? Or do you consider the words of all pastors, preachers, and reverends to be virtuous and true?
And how is my question deflecting attention. If you’re going to make a bold statement like you did, then you must state a position on the virtuousness of pastors, preachers, and reverends since they are the ones who are teaching and preaching ID.
No. Why?
Ira's comment was about dishonest scientists. That's all I was responding to.
Or do you consider the words of all pastors, preachers, and reverends to be virtuous and true?
No, but that's irrelevant. Just because some people may be dishonest, doesn't excuse others for being dishonest.
Situational ethics may make someone feel good because they feel they are better than someone else, but a dishonest scientist is still a dishonest scientist.
The links demonstrate the lies, frauds, and misrepresentations engaged in by those who claim to be scientists. Just because someone else does it, doesn't make it acceptable.
And how is my question deflecting attention.
Because you brought something else in it to focus the attention on that instead of addressing the issue of fraud and deceit in science.
If you’re going to make a bold statement like you did, then you must state a position on the virtuousness of pastors, preachers, and reverends since they are the ones who are teaching and preaching ID.
No, I must not *must*.
Why should I? Why should I be obligated to address an issue that you think I should?
Your last statement makes absolutely no sense. The leap in logic (for lack of a better term) that you make is convoluted at best. There's no reason why I *must* and what pastors, preachers, and reverends are teaching and preaching ID anyway?
Pastors, preachers and reverends should be teaching Creation, NOT ID.