Frank walton of the "atheismsucks" blog has seen fit to delete two of my posts at http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/12/common-objections-to-intelligent-design.html I think it is because they showed he was using a straw-man fallacy. (He was definitely using a straw-man fallacy; though the use may have been inadvertant.) Naturally, if asked, he will deny this. I will leave it to any readers of this post to come to their own conclusions.
A key point that I made in both posts was that I do not actually support macro-evolution as scientific and so do not support it being taught in public schools. Specificly, I do not believe that macro-evolution is falsifiable (by any techniques that we posess) and so does not qualify as a scientific theory. He was, of course, challenging me to show that macro-evolution was scientific, distracting from my actual claim that intelligent design is not.
"Or to put it another way, to affirm that: 1) there is real design in nature, but 2) deny that there is a real Designer who ultimately caused that design, while perhaps not logically inconsistent, would be practically inconsistent. That is, 2), the denial that there is a Designer ultimately behind the design, would in practice weaken one's argument for 1), that there is real design."
I pulled this quote from one of the links he posted. My purpose was to respond to his claim of, "It's obvious by now you haven't even begun to look up the links I provided." I also find it amusing that he says, "Virtually every time you're refuted you change the subject a bit. Or you dodge," considering he has not refuted my actual claims. He may think he refutes my assertion that ID postulates a designer when he says that it postulates no god; but he would be incorrect. I accept the claim by ID porponents that the designer need not be a god. Part of what it means to be designed is to have a designer. Something may look designed when it has no designer; but then the appearance is an illusion.
Now, you might expect better from a blog that boasts "The purpose of this blog is to promote reason and intellectual responsibility, and in so doing we aim to counteract the manipulative, dishonest, and fallacious tactics of atheist apologists." I, however, do not. I would like to see a christian blogger admit that some of his beliefs are based on faith or a "gut feel;" but it doesn't look like it will happen.