[VadeRetro]

Either Darwinism or intelligent design. Not Darwinism.

"Not Darwinism." For all the intellectual content, it might as well be "Goddidit last Thursday."

[Scully]

Letting divine causes fill in wherever naturalistic ones are hard to find is not only bad theology -- it leaves you worshiping a ''God of the gaps'' -- but it is also a science-stopper.

"Then a miracle occurs." I have the t-shirt, and used to wear it to the lab until my advisor pointed out that the thesis committee might not appreciate or understand the humor. :)

[Sabertooth]

"Not Darwinism." For all the intellectual content, it might as well be "Goddidit last Thursday."

As opposed to "Random did it 16 billion years ago."

Isn't the real dilemma between causal and acausal?

One thing, though, that I don't understand about ID, is why the evolutionary process itself can't be evidence for it... or for that matter, why math, physics, and chemistry aren't ID evidence.

Why concede all of that nice, systematic, orderly ground, plus much of biology, and then make a stand on evolution?

[Quila]

The logic of this strategy is impeccable: Either Darwinism or intelligent design. Not Darwinism. Therefore, intelligent design. Armed with that conclusion, they hope to pry scientifically minded people away from a purely secular worldview.

Funny thing is that it's not logical. The creationists are starting off with a logical fallacy (false dichotomy) at the basis for their strategy to get converts. They have not even tried to do scientific study to produce positive evidence of ID, just tried disproving evolution.

Okay, fine, let's say evolution is found completely false and falls apart as a scientific theory. Then these 'neo creos' they'll think they've won, and believe ID is the only scientifically acceptable answer. WRONG, they've started with a false dichotomy and produced no evidence for their side. At that point, there will be NO scientific theory as to our beginning.