CottShop: "On the scientific grounds- period- Pure ID is STRICTLY scientific."
You're joking and mocking us, aren't you?
There is NOTHING scientific about "intelligent design." All you did was take your Bible-based "Creationism" file and renamed it "Intelligent Design." There's nothing more there.
No serious scientific work, no peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, no actual debate amongst recognized scientists -- nothing.
I'll say again, I agree philosophically, theologically and religiously that God created the heavens, earth and its creatures. But that is not science, and science doesn't care what you or I think about it.
[[You’re joking and mocking us, aren’t you?]]
Not at all Bro- Don’t mistake certain ID sites for being the voice of ID- Pue ID is PURE Forensics- period- it makes no assumptions about who or what the intellgience is behind the evidnece we find- it simply presents the evidence as any good forensic scientist would- infact quite a number of ID proponents are not infact religious, nor do they think God is hte intelleigence-
[[There is NOTHING scientific about “intelligent design.”]]
Either step it up with intellectual honesty or we’re done- Your comment is so far removed from reality and the facts that it doesn’t warrent a response-
[[ All you did was take your Bible-based “Creationism” file and renamed it “Intelligent Design.” ]]
Again, this is hsowing your ingorance of the FACTS- enough with the Darwin central cliche’s eh?
[[No serious scientific work, no peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, no actual debate amongst recognized scientists — nothing.]]
first of all a great many discoveries and scientific pursuits were NEVER peer reviewed- Secoindly, Peer review does not science make- thirdly- there is a VERY good reason why some ID is rejected and you know it- there is EXTREME bias agaisnt ID, with peer reviewers conforming to an a priori belief- the peer review system has become a subjective joke and has degraded from the original intent of peer review- fourthly, you claim that there has been no peer review is blatantly FALSE! Again you are simply parroting Darwin central cliche’s and quite frankly, these false claims are ignorant of hte facts and quite childish- Do a little research on your own instead of parroting other’s false claims- there has been ‘serious peer review’ and some have stood for over 15 years unrefuted! Cripes- do a little homework before spouting off abotu osmethign you obviously know little about