Replies

But I do have a few comments for the record on what is the “cut” between creationism and intelligent design. They are most certainly not the same thing at all – and attempts to paint the ID supporters with the creationist brush reflects poorly on those who do so, much like attempts to paint evolutionists with the Nazi brush reflects poorly on those who do so. Both arguments seem to crop up when the correspondent has run out of “ammunition” and has to throw “spit wads” to stay in the game.

You are one of the very few people who sincerely think that ID is not a slicked-up version of creationism. My guess is that almost everyone else who supports ID does so in the way that voters supported John Kerry -- he wasn't much, but at least he wasn't George Bush. It was widely known as the "anyone but Bush" syndrome. Similarly, there's a group that will support "anything but evolution." Nothing else can explain how otherwise intelligent people will profess to believe that "little green men from Uranus are responsible for all the evidence that is currently explained by evolution" is an hypothesis that biologists should seriously consider.

I've missed you around these threads. Where ya' been?

Thank you so much for your reply!

I've missed you around these threads. Where ya' been?

LOLOL! I've been gone every afternoon helping my husband on his construction project. I did however look in on this thread earlier and it seemed that it might be getting a bit hot, so I withheld comment.

Similarly, there's a group that will support "anything but evolution."

IMHO, when this group of supporters get involved it actually hurts the Intelligent Design arguments by misdirecting it to a theism/atheism debate. It is also wrongheaded because ID is not associated with any theology.

When ID is discussed without theology or ideology it becomes clear that the theory of evolution is incomplete, needs to be updated with state-of-the-art mathematics/physics and that the notion of randomness needs to be abandoned.