Skip to comments.
Intelligent Design Proponents Distance Themselves from Creationists [El Tejon litigation]
American Chronicle ^
| 12 January 2006
| Wayne Adkins
Posted on 01/14/2006 5:03:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
2
posted on
01/14/2006 5:05:07 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
Too little, too late. Nobody believes it. Without creationist money, ID would have been broke long ago. Now, leave me alone. The NFL playoffs are on.
3
posted on
01/14/2006 5:07:48 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: PatrickHenry
It was obvious that the California class was YEC, not just ID. That of course doesn't mean that ID isn't creationism. It will be fun to see the ID'ers and the YEC's duke it out.
4
posted on
01/14/2006 5:10:52 PM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life...")
To: PatrickHenry
I wonder how Howie Ahmanson is doing these days.
5
posted on
01/14/2006 5:11:53 PM PST
by
dread78645
(Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry
The NFL playoffs are on. Yay! Hawks!
6
posted on
01/14/2006 5:20:27 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(Winning is important to me: the real joy is the experience of being fully engaged in what I'm doing)
To: PatrickHenry
I love a good game of let's-you-and-him-fight.
7
posted on
01/14/2006 5:23:53 PM PST
by
Physicist
To: PatrickHenry
I heavily distance myself from others. This is conceit, in one view.
However, this arrangement helps to lower the annoyance of hearing stupid conversations like, "I just downloaded 'Hey Ya' to my iPod. Want to hear it? -- OH YES PLEASE I WOULD!"
Such is the gap between schools of our genesis.
8
posted on
01/14/2006 5:33:16 PM PST
by
SteveMcKing
("No empire collapses because of technical reasons. They collapse because they are unnatural.")
To: PatrickHenry
ID - a perversion of religion and a perversion of science. Satan is likely envious that it wasn't his idea - or was it?
9
posted on
01/14/2006 5:44:57 PM PST
by
M203M4
To: SteveMcKing
So ID is the new hip generation without substance while creationists are the more well-mannered establishment???
10
posted on
01/14/2006 5:51:36 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(Winning is important to me: the real joy is the experience of being fully engaged in what I'm doing)
To: PatrickHenry
And yet a supposedly classic work of ID (and I'd bet advertised as such by the Discovery Institute) like Phillip E. Johnson's
Darwin On Trial is filled from cover to cover with typical "Creation Science" arguments. The whole section on the fossil record, for instance, literally makes no sense apart from a young-earth/flood-geology perspective. Johnson's claim to be an old-earther or agnostic on the subject (I forget which stance he takes) is merely a point of incoherence; or evidence that, like many a lawyer, he adopts arguments opportunistically without understanding their full implications.
Besides, nothing in standard "scientific" (or "Biblical") creationism actually contradicts anything in "Intelligent Design". Officious ID'ers may claim that the two are not wholly identical, but they can't sensibly deny that one is a subset of the other. It would be like the AMA trying to claim that surgeons are doctors but internists aren't.
11
posted on
01/14/2006 5:56:23 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Stultis
It would be like the AMA trying to claim that surgeons are doctors but internists aren't. The entire edifice of ID is a transparent fraud, designed by charlatans to slip creationism past the courts, because the judges -- so the ID gurus imagine -- are too dumb to notice that ID is pure creationism. But at the same time, out in the trailer parks, the creationism crowd is supposed to be wildly cheering for ID because they get it, while the federal judges somehow can't figure it out.
Brilliant strategy. But it seems to be falling apart. Judges aren't the idiots that the Discovery Institute thinks they are, and the ID enthusiasts in the trailer parks just can't let go of their young-earth-creationism. How embarrassing. Eventually, the "Discovery" Institute will actually discover something -- that they're not quite as smart as they thought.
12
posted on
01/14/2006 6:11:20 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
I'm a young earth creationist. I don't think the planet is a day over 3 billion years old.
To: SteveMcKing
I don't understand your comment.
14
posted on
01/14/2006 6:18:41 PM PST
by
willyd
(No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity)
To: SteveMcKing
So ID is the new hip generation without substance while creationists are the more well-mannered establishment??? ...But they're still playing the same song! LOL!
15
posted on
01/14/2006 6:20:37 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(Winning is important but the real joy is the experience of being fully engaged in whatever I'm doing)
To: Larry Lucido
And da devole made ya do it! LOL!
16
posted on
01/14/2006 6:25:17 PM PST
by
phantomworker
(Winning is important but the real joy is the experience of being fully engaged in whatever I'm doing)
To: Stultis
The whole section on the fossil record, for instance, literally makes no sense apart from a young-earth/flood-geology perspectiveI think that he is officially agnostic on the whole young earth/old earth thing, but I seriously doubt that he personally believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. A great many scientists are skeptical of or troubled by the over-reaching claims made by the evolution-only folks, but few endorse the young earth idea.
17
posted on
01/14/2006 6:47:07 PM PST
by
DallasMike
(Call me Dallasaurus)
To: PatrickHenry
the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Wouldn't that be a little like mixing butter with grits? So, is this an evangelical rift or just biting the hand that feeds you?
18
posted on
01/14/2006 6:51:37 PM PST
by
shuckmaster
(An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns)
To: Physicist
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
19
posted on
01/14/2006 6:53:44 PM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
To: DallasMike
Just dug out my copy of Darwin on Trial to refresh my recollection. I was incorrect in claiming that the whole section on the fossil record presupposes a young-earth/flood-geology P.O.V. Some arguments do, while others imply a progressive creationism view. IOW it's completely incoherent.
20
posted on
01/14/2006 6:59:10 PM PST
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson