Replies

I admitted the term "ID" was not in use in 1700. Are you going on record asserting that the concept was not in use, and that many of the great thinkers of the time did not consider the universe to be a great mechanism created by God?

Please read my post again. I state that ID and creationism are two different things because ID does not mention God. The great scienists of the 17th and 18th centuries were creationists! They were not afraid to say that God created the universe and all that is in it. I am not either. I think some ID people today realize that evolution is bogus (M. Behe) for example, and that there is a designer behind it all, but for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to say or believe that it was the God of the bible who did the creating. Others, like W. Dembski, are creationists, but they keep the terminology in secular terms so as to keep the focus on the bogus theory of evolution; if he were to say that God was the designer, then the evolutionists, like you, would take him down a rabbit trail and the focus would shift to God. He wants to keep the focus on evolutionary theory and its colossal shortcomings.

I might take your protest seriously if you can suggest a plausible candidate for the designer other than God. You take great stock in rationality, so explain how the designers came into being if not directly created by God. Is there more than one God capable of creating life? I am really curious how ID is different from creationism.

3369: ID is simply a new way of touting creationism without mentioning the threatening and menacing word, "GOD,"....

3379: I state that ID and creationism are two different things becauseID does not mention God. ....

Which is it? Is ID equivalent to Creationism or not? Is ID just Creationism trying to masquerade as something else?