This is an excellent video by someone who has put time and effort into exposing a typical bit of Discovery Institute propaganda.
On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
Comments
Still insignificant, of course, compared to the number of scientists who accept evolution...
It's also interesting to note that the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" list has almost double the amount of signatures.
Old classics like that will never die, because creationists will always lie.
As a philosopher would you have any idea why those people are always doing things like this? They themselves believe in ID so why do they lie so much about it?