Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

Discovery Institute ^ | January 9, 2003 | John G. West, Jr.

[Heartlander]

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same


John G. West, Jr.
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
January 9, 2003

---

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

* This article originally ran in the December issue of Research News

---

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle dealing with national and international affairs. The Institute is dedicated to exploring and promoting public policies that advance representative democracy, free enterprise and individual liberty. For more information visit Discovery's website at http://www.discovery.org.

Please report any errors to webmaster@discovery.org

[Aric2000]

Like I said, there are NO publicly accessible papers or documents to prove my claim, therefore to continue to argue it or give more info is moot.

If I give more info on something that I cannot prove, then I look like a kook. I got angry and spouted off info that I should not have shared, not without that proof available that is.

Sorry, I could share more info, but I won't, I can't prove it, therefore toi argue with you or to share MORE with you is a little silly if you ask me.

Sorry, but that is the last you will hear from me on the subject for a while. The documents will be publicly disclosed soon, and when that happens, I will be more then happy to share my insights. But, NOT until then.

Without proof, it is just me stating something, what I say has no weight without proof to back me up, and until that proof is released, I am not going to talk about it anymore.

[Aric2000]

I'd like to know what you mean by consistently.

I NEVER said that Galileo etc did NOT believe that god created the universe, ALL I said was that they did not CALL themselves creationists.

If they had been born NOW, then yes, they would have called themselves creationists, and because of the fact that we now call those that believe that god created the universe creationists, then yes, we would call them creationists.

We never argued the point that they were creationists as we call them now, all we said, and that which you twisted to mean something that it did not, is that the term "creationist" did NOT exist at the time, therefore they would not have called themselves creationists. That is what we stated and that is what you twisted to say that we did NOT think that they believed that god created the universe. WE NEVER SAID THAT, YOU twisted it, and claimed that is what we said, when that is NOT AT ALL what we said.

And YES, the statement that heartlander and you and MEgoody want to hear more about or whatever, does indeed sound wacky as you say, and I cannot blame you. I admit, that without proof it sounds crazy.

The proof is out there, it has just not been publicly disclosed yet, when it is, I will discuss this further, but until then, my mouth is now closed on the subject.

[Aric2000]

And I see nothing here about ID.

Or do you think the claim that a socalled "purpose" as he calls it, is somehow scientifically verifiable?

By the way, where is the link? where is this man's bio, other papers written etc?

I have seen ID theorists take something said innocently and completely twist what was said and meant into something else. You yourself did this once already, in this thread, when you claimed we said something, when that is NOT at all what we said or meant.

Please come up with something better, this was a rather sad attempt.

[DallasMike]

And I see nothing here about ID.

Did you read it? Here's a quote:

"...reopens the controversial prospect of a teleology; that is, the process is underpinned by a purpose."

Teleology means "The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena." That is precisely why it's useful to have a science education when you're discussing scientific things. You might find a dictionary handy, too.

Or do you think the claim that a socalled "purpose" as he calls it, is somehow scientifically verifiable?

It seems that it's becoming the theory that best fits the data. I'm a scientist and I deal in data. You're dealing in opinions.

By the way, where is the link? where is this man's bio, other papers written etc?

Do you want me to come hold your hand while you turn on the computer? Believe it or not, not everything every published is on the internet. Scientific journals often cost subscribers hundreds or thousands of dollars per year. Go to your local university and you'll no doubt find a copy.

The man is a full professor at Cambridge, for heaven's sake. We're not talking about Podunk Junior College. You said you wanted the following:

"Name me ONE paper that has been published on ID, give me names, a link, anything, on ANY paper that has been published on ID that has been peer reviewed..."

I did exactly that.

Since you probably can't figure out how to do it yourself, Here's a list of papers and books published by Professor Morris. He's no intellectual lightweight. You'll note at the bottom that he's published 148 books and papers.

I have seen ID theorists take something said innocently and completely twist what was said and meant into something else. You yourself did this once already, in this thread, when you claimed we said something, when that is NOT at all what we said or meant. You're lying and you know it.

Please come up with something better, this was a rather sad attempt.

I gave you a paper from a full professor at Cambridge (that's the one in England, you know) that has published, at last count, some 148 papers and books in the field of paleobiology and paleomicrobiology. I think that's plenty good enough.

It's interesting that the professor said that intelligent design "is being extended to the fields of biochemistry and molecular biology." If you'll remember, that's precisely at the point where evolution as a theory begins to look very unsteady.

I provided exactly what you asked me for. It's time for you to eat some crow and quit blathering about things that you know nothing about.

[Aric2000]

I actually saw him say "purpose", where did he say Intelligent Design?

Answer carefully please, you seem to be as clueless as you are saying I am.

And I did not lie, anyone that has read the thread fully knows that you began with a MAJOR misrepresentation and ran with it from there. I just took the misrepresentation and tried to set you back on course. Something that you steadfastly refused to do.

Oh, well, can lead a horse to water.

[DallasMike]

Ping because you were involved in the conversations with Aric2000, too. See my above posts.

[DallasMike]

I actually saw him say "purpose", where did he say Intelligent Design?

Answer carefully please, you seem to be as clueless as you are saying I am.

Did he actually use the words "Intelligent Design?" No, but the excerpts of the paper use plenty of synonyms for it. Do you know what a synomym is? I even gave you a dictionary link to the word teleology, which means "the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena." That's the very definition of Intelligent Design. What could be more clear?

You're playing your silly word games again and I'm not going to play. If you're incapable of having an intelligent discussion, that's your problem, not mine.

I just took the misrepresentation and tried to set you back on course.

Believe whatever fantasies you want to believe because the record speaks for itself. You're a hopeless cause.

[Aric2000]

Since you have decided to edit your version, I will repost the entire assorted posts that you claim say what it didn't say.

Post 23 You:So I suppose you reject the scientific achievements of those from Galileo to Newton to Faraday, not to mention the many, many thousands of scientists today who believe in God? You are very, very narrowminded.

post 169 RMMCdaniel: Galileo and Newton lived long before Darwin's time, you can't call him a creationist since evolution had not been considered. Faraday died less than ten years after Darwin's work was published and before the gathering of the overwhelming evidence after the discovery of DNA as the molecule of inheritance. The fact that you can't name any well-respect scientists from this century shows how ridiculous your argument is.

Post 173 You: Can't call Galileo and Newton creationists? Bwah-hah-hah-hah! What about Faraday?

You should open your mind a bit more.

there is where the misrepresentation started

Post 174 Then I said this: What he meant is that creationism was it, there were NO other theories at the time, therefore there were no what you would call today, creationists.

That was it, there was no other, therefore calling them creationists would be somewhat redundant, don't you think?

Post 175 you: Galileo and Newton were creationists because they believed that the earth had a creator. It doesn't matter whether they had ever met a non-creationist.

You're engaging in empty logic by trying to argue the point.

Post 176 my response: Again, I will restate it, since you are having such a hard time with it. The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se, because there was no need for it, there was NO other theory. Of course they believed in creationism, or said that they did, because there was NOTHING that competed with it at the time.

Is that concept just too much for you Dalls?

Post 179 you: After hearing you argue that scientists like Newton, Galileo, and Faraday weren't really creationists, I'm pretty suspect of your ability to recognize a scientist if you ever happened to meet one.

post 180 me: Duh, of course they were creationists, I never argued that point, or did you NOT notice that? But creationist as a word and as a particular group DID NOT exist, because there was no reason for it.

THERE WAS NO COMPETING THEORY AT THE TIME.

No wonder you have such a hard time, historical context totally escapes you.

Post 184 you: Now: Duh, of course they were creationists, I never argued that point, or did you NOT notice that?

Earlier: The word creationist did not exist at that time, there were no creationists per se...

I don't even have to argue with you because you do such a good job of skewering your own arguments

Post 187 RMMCdaniel: Can't call Galileo and Newton creationists? Bwah-hah-hah-hah! What about Faraday?

You should open your mind a bit more.

Perhaps you should try explaining your position instead of posting a childish "Bwa hah hah" which does nothing to convince anyone.

Post 188 you: I think most people were so amused by you trying to wrangle around the fact that Galileo and Newton were creationists that they had the same reaction I did. For an encore you can prove that Ted Kennedy isn't a liberal.

This is where I explain to RCCMdaniel exactly what you are doing and why you are doing it.

Post 189 me: Dallas loves to play word games, as you probably have noticed.

Since the term creationist DID NOT exist at the time of Galileo, Newton etc, because there were no other theories at the time, and therefore the term creationist was NOT needed, does NOT escape him, he just chooses to ignore it.

This way, he can think that we sound like fools, when in fact it is the EXACT opposite.

He claims that they were creationists, well, if they were alive today, their beliefs would make them creationists, but then.... Well, you get the picture.

He does too, but thinks he has a hold of something, so he will continue in that vain until we tire of trying to explain it to him, then he will say that he won the argument.

It's really kind of amusing, in a sick kind of way, when you think about it.

Post 192 you: Which is the point that you're seemingly unable to grasp, preferring to play little word games instead -- and then accuse me of playing word games! I'll give you points for audacity.



I think that is enough, you started the misrepresentation in post 173 and continued in that vein through the entire thread.

Our statement was OBVIOUS, Galileo and Newton were not alive when the term creationist was invented, it was NOT a term that was used to describe ones beliefs. Nowadays we would consider them creationists, but in their time, they did not. So to say they were creationists is actually a misrepresentation, because there was no other theory then, and therefore it would be silly in the extreme.

Newton and Galileo would not have been creationists or ID in todays world, if they had been born in modern times. Because they MAY have believed in Creationism and ID, but they would NOT have mistaken them for science.

You knew the point he was making and you chose to attack instead, because it was something you could grab hold of and attack with.

Can't fight the message, discredit or destroy the messenger, END OF STORY....

[Aric2000]

I am not going to post the entire article, I am just going to give you the link.

Read and tell me again that this man is an ID proponent.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/naturalhistory_cambrian.html

Yeah, right, sure, whatever buddy.

You idr's are a strange lot, you see a word that a scientist said that has some REAL clout and twist it to mean what you want. How fascinating, NOT, IDr's do it ALL the time.

I will continue to research this man, but so far you are batting a big fat 0!!

[Aric2000]

Yep, you BLEW IT!! Big time!!

http://www.rnw.nl/science/html/ideas020501.html

Heres a small snippet from it!!

This conclusion that there is a kind of ‘direction' in evolution is part of the reason why Prof. Conway Morris's ideas are so controversial, as he acknowledges: "One needs to be careful – words like ‘plan' or ‘design' evoke the idea of teleology, where there might be a purpose behind everything. But that's not a scientifically answerable question. Some people outside the field protest that evolution can't be true because of all the arguments, but the realities are there in the fossil records, molecular biology and other avenues. And it's important to stress that although there's a lot of controversy going on, there's also a great deal of agreement."

Did you see that?

"One needs to be careful – words like ‘plan' or ‘design' evoke the idea of teleology, where there might be a purpose behind everything. But that's not a scientifically answerable question.

Here let me break it down for you one more time.

But that's not a scientifically answerable question.


Even he admits that it is NOT a scientifically answerable question.

You just shot your thesis to pieces!!

Your example IDr just stated what I have been stating through this ENTIRE thread!!

ID is NOT scientifically verifiable, and therefore is not scientific!!!

You need to research more before you start tossing names about.

[DallasMike]

Yep, you BLEW IT!! Big time!! ... You need to research more before you start tossing names about.

No, you didn't understand what was written. You posted from the link:

This conclusion that there is a kind of ‘direction' in evolution is part of the reason why Prof. Conway Morris's ideas are so controversial:

Morris's ideas wouldn't be controversial if he accepted the standard evolution dogma, now would it? And his conclusion that "there is a kind of ‘direction' in evolution" leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is a director. I saw the movie "Chicago" tonight. It was obvious during the movie that there was a direction to the movie. And sure enough, when the title credits rolled, the movie had a director! Imagine my (lack of) surprise.

You can't even understand the things you quoted. You're way out of your league in this argument and don't even know when you've shot yourself in the foot.

[Aric2000]

Well mr. Chemical Engineer, mr. Science man, where is your next case?

Shall I blow it up just as I did with the Morris example?

I may not have a degree, but my opinions are sure batting 1000 with the scientist you gave as a reference for ID.

I seem to have more of a grasp on what is and what isn't science then you do. It seems the scientist in this case, ACTUALLY agrees with ME!!

Yep, that science degree seems to help you think and make sense so much better then me.

Get a grip Dallas, it doesn't matter one little bit, it seems that I have the right premise, and you do not.

Care to try again?

[DallasMike]

THERE WAS NO COMPETING THEORY AT THE TIME.

No, if you note the link to this article that I gave you in post 192, you'll note that the idea of evolution was a competing theory at the time, and had been since at least the time of Aristotle.

Your entire thesis is wrong, but if you want to continue looking foolish, go right ahead.

[Aric2000]

ROFLMAO!! OMG, you are actually going to claim that you are right?

OK, fine. let me do a bit more research and we'll really fry you then.

If you are this gone, there is NO hope for you!!

HIS STATEMENT was OBVIOUS and without any doubts!!

That was that to mistake it teleology was scientifacally unverifiable.

What part of "But that's not a scientifically answerable question" did you NOT understand?

What part of that was NOT beyond OBVIOUS?

[Aric2000]

Quote from your article.

The idea of evolution was not particularly dominant in patristic and scholastic theology and philosophy, both on account of the dualism which runs through them as an echo of Plato and Aristotle, and on account of the generally accepted Christian theory of creation. However, evolution is not generally denied; and with Augustine (De civitate dei, xv. 1) it is taken as the basis for a philosophy of history. Erigena and some of his followers seem to teach a sort of evolution.

What part of "was NOT particularly dominant" did you NOT understand?

"And a sort of evolution" did you not understand.

You seem to take a phrase and really build it into something that it is not.

This exageration thing you have going is really quite hilarious, if again, it weren't so sick.

You take a phrase, or an article, pull the context out that you want and build it up from there. It's a fascinating process, did your chemical engineering teacher teach you how to do this?

[Aric2000]

You do not seem to understand his underlying thesis, at least the one in the article that I quoted.

It has NOTHING to do with ID.

This is another part from the article.

Problem Solving
‘Convergence' is the most important argument in Prof. Conway Morris's armoury against the many other evolutionary biologists who say that evolution is contingent upon chance. ‘Convergent evolution' has resulted in diverse kinds of unrelated organisms solving certain problems in the same ways. For example, bats and dolphins use echolocation to sense prey and their environment, while the ‘camera eye' has arisen in octopuses, bristle-worms and other groups as well as in vertebrates such as us.

"This suggests there are a limited number of solutions to the way in which organisms can operate in the natural environment," he explains. "There are constraints on life which infer large scale predictability to various end points – not necessarily inevitabilities, but we can be pretty confident they'll re-emerge again and again."

There is NOTHING here that says anything about ID, NOTHING.

He states, and I quote "There are constraints on life which infer large scale predictability to various end points – not necessarily inevitabilities, but we can be pretty confident they'll re-emerge again and again."

He is saying that there are natural constraints on living animals that will allow them to do things in certain ways, in other words, the SAME thing will evolve, over and over again.

His whole basic premise is that if we had not evolved into what we are, some other branch of the tree would have. He says that with evolution, it is inevitable that intelligence and self awareness would have evolved.

Why? because that is just the way life is, he says NOTHING about design, and as a matter of fact comes straight out and says "One needs to be careful – words like ‘plan' or ‘design' evoke the idea of teleology, where there might be a purpose behind everything. But that's not a scientifically answerable question. Some people outside the field protest that evolution can't be true because of all the arguments, but the realities are there in the fossil records, molecular biology and other avenues. And it's important to stress that although there's a lot of controversy going on, there's also a great deal of agreement."

Do I need to get any simpler then that, he outright says that any idea that says that there might be a design is NOT scientifically verifiable.

You have taken his words out of context and tried to prove something with them that he himself does NOT believe.

LOOK AT THE LAST SENTENCE!!

"And it's important to stress that although there's a lot of controversy going on, there's also a great deal of agreement."

He is an evolutionist, NOT an ID'r, it is GlARINGLY obvious.

I find his thesis fascinating, in other words, if the dinosaurs had not been wiped out. They could have evolved into intelligent and self aware creatures, if we had not done so, some other creature would.

Not because of ID or anything of that nature, but because of CONVERGENCE, ALL creatures will evolve to solve problems in a limited and verifiable way, one of those ways, he believes is through intelligence and self awareness.

Nothing ID about this man, he IS a scientist, and has a really incredible mind.

I will have to study this guy further, he really sounds fascinating.

Well, at least something has come out of this little silly debate.

[DallasMike]

What part of "was NOT particularly dominant" did you NOT understand?

I never said that the theory of evolution was "dominant," merely that it existed. You said, "THERE WAS NO COMPETING THEORY AT THE TIME."

You were wrong and you're compounding you're wrongness by playing you're silly word games again.

[DallasMike]

Well, at least something has come out of this little silly debate.

The silly little debate is over and I will no longer respond to your ignorant, lying rants. Others can read the record if they can stomach your arrogant blather. This is my last post to you.

[Aric2000]

LOL, run away, run away.

I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that your ID scientist was no such thing.

You are the one proven the fool.

That's fine, your rhetoric was getting rather old, and your "facts" were laughable.

Just for fun, I sent an e-mail to the professor and asked him straight out if he was a proponent of ID, I told him that I did NOT see anywhere where he stated that he was, and therefore wished it direct from the horses mouth so to speak.

If he answers, I will give you the full E-mail that I sent him and the response if I get one.

In the article it was GLARINGLY obvious that he was NOT an ID'r in that particular article, and NO other article that I could locate.

But I decided that I would give you the benefit of the doubt and just ask him outright.

We'll see what he says.

Also, it seems that a closer look at the above that it could be construed that we both were playing some word games, more on your side though, but, I am willing to concede the point, to a point.

Your continued insistence that I do not know what I am talking about though is NOT only laughable, but straight up wrong. That I found rather amusing.

That was just plain vitriol and BS on your part to cover your obvious misconceptions of the scientific verifiability of ID theory, or it's socalled acceptance by true scientists.

If that is the last thing you have to say to me, that is just fine with me, but later, after the professor responds to my e-mail, if he deigns to, that is, I will post his response for you.

I am positive of what he is going to say, but even if it disagrees with me, I will post an unedited version here for your perusal.

[edsheppa]

Evolution simply does not explain how all the chemicals managed to get in the right place at the right time.

Of course it does.