Firstly, I’d like to thank Wesley Elsberry for writing a more-or-less gentle and kindly worded response to my “Darwinist Misinformation Train” article on antievolution.org. I’d also like to say that on a personal level, I have met Wesley and I think he’s a nice guy with some very interesting hobbies. Wesley is the only guy I’ve ever met who owns a bird of prey and takes it hunting. Some might call that eccentric, but I think that’s kinda cool. Anyways, I think Wesley is a decent person who has a passionate desire to see the truth made known. I don’t always agree with him on what the truth is, but I’d like to compliment him because I think that even though we arrive at different conclusions, if I know understand him properly, then I know our hearts are coming from similar places.
Anyways, Wesley used nearly the precise title I was expecting from the first Darwinist responder. As far as his arguments go, however, they are weak and his collection of quotes do not make anything resembling a case against the nature of ID theory. I am well aware that there are ID proponents who have talked about the designer as being “God” and am fully capable of dealing with these quotes. But before I slice and slash at Wesley’s arguments (which I mostly reject), for the sake of argument, I’d like to accept his contentions and see where that leaves the Darwinist Misinformation Train.
Even if Wesley were right and there were a few instances where ID proponents claim ID theory identifies the designer as God, Darwinists always fail to inform the public of the many (if not an overwhelming majority of) instances where ID proponents make it excruciatingly clear that the designer cannot be identified by ID theory. Darwinists are thus still misrepresenting ID theory to the public because they make statements indicating that ID theory universally identifies the designer as God.
Again, please note that this is just a brief taste of my response which can be read in full at http://www.discovery.org/f/516. Hope you enjoy!