Replies

"Nevertheless, no matter how vague the wording is, the English language is not so imprecise as to allow the Discovery Institute to hide the creationism inherent in intelligent design."

I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.

"You ask me to provide “a reference showing that our origin is best explained by natural processes - observable and testable, according to your own requirements for ID.” Please check out Biology by Campbell and Reece."

The requested document does not exist on this server.

I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.

Let’s take a look at the name, shall we?

Unless the title is a misnomer, intelligent design in the context of biology indicates a belief that some aspects of life were created by an entity that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identity of this entity is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that an entity is responsible.

I again direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:

First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

Also, if you were unable to google the textbook, please click here. Hopefully, you won’t wait a week to click the link.