ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time. It is therefore compatible with Christianity--and Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, New Age, and every other belief system that posits a creative intellegence behind life.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own.
Nonsense. The only problem most of us have with ID is when its proponents insist on re-writing the definition of "science" to accomdate it.
The answer is simple - don't pretend that it's science, and you'll have no beef with most of the people on these threads. It's the lowering of standards to which we object.
Note that it is explicit association, not implicit.
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time.
I agree. That's all it states. And it is precisely the amorphous and utterly untestable nature of this "simple statement" that renders it unscientific, useless as an exploratory tool, and perfectly adaptable to the theocratic flavor of the day.
Excellent comments, bear repeating:
ID simply states that some outside Intellegence created life and may have had a hand in shaping it over time. It is therefore compatible with Christianity--and Islam, Deism, Hinduism, Buddhism, agnosticism, New Age, and every other belief system that posits a creative intellegence behind life.
The only ones who are throwing a fit are those who a) don't understand ID and have fallen for the press bit that it's "young-earth Creationism in disguise," and b) those who are so wed to their atheistic creation myth (usually something involving Campbell's primordial soup) that they are personally threatened by the increasing evidence that life could not have arisen on its own