Replies

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.

I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.

Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.

Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."

There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."

I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.

It is NOT revisionist. There are agnostics who doubt Darwinism and are sympathetic to Intelligent Design. You are confusing similarity with identity ( actually I don't think you are, you seem to be DELIBERATELY misrepresenting ).

Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.

There you go -- should I call the statements made by anti-ID atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Hector Avalos THEOLOGICAL and NOT SCIENTIFIC ? After all, Dawkins is the ones who call people who teach their children to believe in God "child abusers".

So, on the one hand we have militant Darwinist whose mission it is to teach the world about the dangers of believing in God, but whose mission you conveniently ignore in order to attack a counter-idea called the Wedge...Why ?

If Darwinists can have their philosophy in life and their personal missions, why can't some ID proponents ?

And what does that have to do with the truth or falsity of their respective arguments ?

BTW, Actually, I kinda like the Wedge document. My favorite part is where it says that the goal is to bring together “leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.” I think desiring to look at how new developments raise doubt on the materialistic paradigm is a wonderful goal. Nowhere does this imply concocting developments or distorting them. What’s so wrong with this goal? Am I missing something?

If Militant Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Sam Harris have the goal of disabusing the world of religion and convincing them that materialism is the only acceptable idea, I guess the Wedge strategy should be an acceptable alternative.

Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."

Uh huh, And you conveniently ignore men like mathematician, David Berlinski ( an agnostic whose main goal in life is simply to have "a good time all the time" ) and New Zealand Biochemistry professor Michael Denton who OPENLY voice their doubts about Darwinism.

There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it

And there aren't many forgeries and lies from Ideological Darwinists who fake their discoveries of ancient ape men to fool people ?

See these examples for instance:

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

I'm sure there are charlatans on both sides of the fence but that does not impress me. What impresses me are the REASONS, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for or against Darwinism ( and ID ). So, bringing these things up do nothing to the truth claim of ID ( or Darwinism for that matter ), just as a health teacher who teaches students the dangers of smoking who smokes in private does nothing to DENT what he teaches.

when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."

Really ? Have you read about the conversion of foremost atheistic Oxford professor Anthony Flew, who is still not a Christian but now at least believes in Intelligent Design because he carefully weighed the arguments for and against chance and design to come up with his conclusion ?

Many people have made up their minds not because they have a religious presupposition but because the EVIDENCE compels them to do so. Professor Flew is just one example.