>>When you start off with this beginning, it is no wonder that ID is not taken seriously by science. It is religion, not science.<<
So it begs the question, did the creationists become prominent in the ID definition because God was taken out of science?
Did they come to the forefront of ID because those like me were totally disregarded anyway?
>>By the way, there is no credible evidence for “’beings’ from another planet ‘seeding’ the Earth.”<<
It’s from the mouth of Dawkins.
So it begs the question, did the creationists become prominent in the ID definition because God was taken out of science?
Did they come to the forefront of ID because those like me were totally disregarded anyway?
If you look at the recent history of creationism, creation "science" was created in the 1960s in reaction to a Supreme Court decision. It didn't fool people for long; in 1988, creation "science" was also found to be religion by the U.S. Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). That decision in turn led to the creation of intelligent design (ID) in an effort to circumvent this court ruling. The evidence is quite clear on this.
>>By the way, there is no credible evidence for “’beings’ from another planet ‘seeding’ the Earth.”<<
It’s from the mouth of Dawkins.
Dawkins noted that he was pressed by the interviewer to come up with increasingly unlikely scenarios, and finally ended up with aliens, the least likely of all. In a typically dishonest edit, that is the one the editors of Expelled chose to use.
That's not journalism; that's dishonest propaganda.