Replies

Intelligent design claims that there is an intelligent designer but makes no attempt to identify it? . . . It's kind of hard to take them seriously if they ignore the central part of their theory, isn't it?

What's particularly fascinating about the ID movement is the apparently firm belief that there are two discrete and entirely isolated audiences for the ID proposition, and that these two audiences can be freely sold a completely separate bill of goods without fear that this patently juvenile duplicity will be uncovered.

Thus, you have a "science" audience told that the Intelligent Designer is unspecified. Could be God. Could be aliens. Could be satan and satan's little helpers.

And then you have the "fundamentalist" audience, who is told right up front and without equivocation that the Intelligent Designer is not just God, but the Christian God of the New Testament.

For example, Phillip Johnson unambiguously states that the biblical basis for ID is John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

And Dembski, following suit, states in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone that John 1 is undeniably the Biblical basis for ID: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

And in Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski's 1999 book, he explains that "divine Logos" is God’s own language, "the Word that in Christ was made flesh," and "God speaks the divine Logos to create the world."

It's such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence.

It's such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence.

If it's an obvious fraud then you must believe they are liars and hucksters. And don't really believe what they say they believe.

Otherwise you end up with the argument that these very learned and credentialed men are stupid fools.

“It’s such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence”

Careful when you use terms like “fraud”, “bizarre”, ect for you have to have an apriori source that defines “fraud”, “lies”, “truth”, ect....

We don’t want you to go unscientific on us now....;)