"Look, I have no plan whatsoever to meet atheists on their playing field. I plan to come about this argument on my own terms and on my own observations and on my own logic."
That's what the defence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover thought, when they thought they could cheat by being reduced to the pseudo-science of (un)'Intelligent Design' instead of being the Bible literalist 'Godidit' types they should have been.
Funny how that worked out, eh? Or not.
...so where were you, aiding said defence in late 2005, you short little 'rebel', you...?! [/hyper-patronising]
"Why do THEY get to define what the terms are? Why must we let them define the argument? Who gave them that mantel?"
Reality, bitch. When not even the Bible itself is admissable as evidence in a court of law, as KvD has proved - and the Cre(a)ti(o)nists are now reduced further to the so-called 'Teach the Controversy' BS - I guess Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe & co. could always fall back on what you're suggesting:
image
...crying, wailing, screaming, 'BAWWWWWWWW!'ing; impotently hitting & kicking the floor - like the 'short little rebel you are - until Reality bends to your will, or someone notices you, whichever is the most likely to happen.
