Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"1987 (according to a 2005 apologia by the DI's Witt) Thaxton's definition of "creation-science" had been overruled at Edwards by being equated to YEC, so he needed a new term and found it in a phrase he'd picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design. He thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term….. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." Soon the term intelligent design was incorporated into the language of the book [Of Pandas and People].
"1987 (according to a 2005 apologia by the DI's Witt) Thaxton's definition of "creation-science" had been overruled at Edwards by being equated to YEC, so he needed a new term and found it in a phrase he'd picked up from a NASA scientist – intelligent design. He thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term….. it seemed to jibe... And I went back through my old copies of Science magazine and found the term used occasionally." Soon the term intelligent design was incorporated into the language of the book [Of Pandas and People].
Sorry, ID is just a religious idea.
InformedConsent doen't even appear to be aware that she used the IDers (aka Creationists) own definition of Intelligent Design when she was asked to define it.
InformedConsent doen't even appear to be aware that she used the IDers (aka Creationists) own definition of Intelligent Design when she was asked to define it.
You already posted a link yourself with the connection between Creationism and ID.
Michael Behe. Are you THAT uninformed about ID that you don't know who he is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Too many are getting ID wrong in this thread. Out of ignorance? Narrow-mindedness? Intellectual laziness? All of the above?
Quote:
University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of "The Creationists," agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, its "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."
...[Lehigh University microbiologist Michael J.] Behe says "the problem is not religious people trying to push design, but scientific people pushing their heads into the sand to avoid design because it has religious implications."
ID theorizes that some features of the natural world, because of their well-ordered complexity, are best explained by an intelligent cause. Such as the inexplicably spontaneous presence of life on our planet when there was none before.
You also use the Creationist definition of ID yourself ^^
The Creationists created that definition of Intelligent Design as a 'hypothesis' that an intelligent designer designed all life on earth. See the Discovery Institute website.
You don't seem to get it that the Intelligent Design movement does everything it can to try to disguise the Creationism it is based on because it is trying to pretend to be 'science' not religion.
The whole thing has been exposed in their "Wedge" document, and in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial/
Clearly you are extremely uninformed on this topic. Your arguments are like peeing in the wind.
Last edited by Ceist; 01-18-2014 at 11:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
