Replies

To paraphrase Berlinski; if we were to replace the word evolution with ‘allah’ and the label of creationist with ‘infidel’ - I don’t think these discussions would read significantly different. But this obviously offends those who use this ‘creationist label‘ often. Why?

I am not by definition a creationist, but if someone in our society wanted to make this ‘creationist label’ (or even id) into a term used to judge others and cast them to the side… Well, I think Alvin Plantinga sums this up nicely here:

Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame?

I have loved science since a child, but as an adult I was disappointed to find science ’in a box’ and void of either intelligence or design when both of these aspects seem far too obvious for any denial. If science must deny any design or intelligence ultimately towards our very being, what does this mean? This question is rhetorical because the obvious meaning is we are nothing more than chemicals acting upon each other and for no higher reason than any other chemical reaction.

I disagree with this methodological naturalistic ‘belief’ so what label should science don me with to make me into a ‘convicted felon‘?

To paraphrase Berlinski; if we were to replace the word evolution with ‘allah’ and the label of creationist with ‘infidel’ - I don’t think these discussions would read significantly different.

ROFL!!! Hardly. It's the evolutionists, not the creationists, who very routinely get accused of being atheists, infidels, blasphemers, anti-God, God-haters, unChristian, heretics, blah blah blah -- even when they're Christians! Just today, we had creationist "nmh" claim that Catholics aren't "really" Christians because he didn't like that the Catholic church has stated that it finds no contradiction between God and evolutionary biology.

Pull the other leg now.

But hey, let's try out your test, shall we? Here's the last reply I've made to one of your own posts which contains both the word "evolution" and "creationis[t/m]", with the edits you suggest:

So again, can there be any connection into the ‘real world’ with any intelligent design in physical science -including/extending into biology?
If the hypothesis is drawn specifically enough and in a way which allows testable predictions to be made and those predictions are subsequently matched by the totality of the evidence, yes.
As it stands today, though, the "ID movement" has neither a specific hypothesis, testable predictions, nor positive evidence. It hasn't even conducted any original research. Nor does it seem likely to -- the "ID movement" is characterized by its affection for press releases and mass-market books, and by its aversion for making any testable hypotheses, much less actually testing them or doing research.
It's an anti-Allah infidel PR campaign dishonestly masquerading as a science.

Wow, doesn't *that* sound stupid... No, contrary to your false claim, it *does* "read significantly different [sic]".