The intelligent design crowd, creationists, postulate the a priori that a God set everything in motion. Marxists postulate a material universe evolving without a god with life originating as an accident of chemistry. Thereafter both carry on their arguments without any proof to confirm their beliefs. They are both arguing the same way, on the simple faith that their a priories are in fact true. Both claim science but show no experimental evidence or offer a valid theory with relevant associations and inferences. The Marxists and Creationists are one and the same in their way of thinking.
That's incorrect.
An Intelligent Design proponent can cite transgenic lab animals and note that they were created by intelligent intervention (e.g. Man).
That has nothing to do with God.
Comments like this demonstrate why our young people should at least be exposed to the basics of this theory in school, so that they could discern truth from fiction in this debate. First, intelligent design cannot be lumped together with creationism. Whereas creationism is religious, intelligent design does not at all “postulate that a God set everything in motion.” It does not even postulate a God. Several intelligent design theorists do not believe in God at all. Likewise, one does not need to belong to any certain religion to refute evolution using current scientific and archaeological evidence.
Much has been learned since 1859.
Ouch! I think you got me. Could you give me an alternative to the two approaches you cite, without falling into the same error you saw in my view?
Marxists do not follow the Christian principle of absolute good or evil. I would say morality is a groundwork concept, thus illustrating a very important difference between Marxist and Creationist thinking.
Dividing everyone into the “intelligent design crowd, creationists” and “Marxists” is a false dichotomy.