The yahoos at the Discovery Institute have ‘co-opted’ the phrase, and “Intelligent Design” is a specific belief that is absolutely NOT shared by those of us who believe in an omniscient creator.
I can see why you wish to lump the two, but it is not reality.
[[I can see why you wish to lump the two, but it is not reality.]]
Hey- heres a thought- instead pf blatting on and on about how ID isn’t science- hows about showing how the ID science is infact not science? Oh and I’m not itnerested in more rediculous generaliztions that come straight from DC- Those type assinine arguements belong in play ground tiffs- not intellctual arguments.
So, let’s here it Allmen- Tell us all how Baraminology isn’t science, how Radio halos are not science, how discontinuity isn’t science, how the Predictable, falsifiable sciecne of ID isn’t infact science- Let’s here soem specifics- we’ve certsainly got our fill of generalized rediculous statements from you- let’s now see you put your money where your mouth is- Address sceintifically how IC isn’t sciecne, how ID isn’t science- How message theory, metainfo etc aren’t science- and what specifically it is that makes them not science.
Intelligent Design” is a specific belief that is absolutely NOT shared by those of us who believe in an omniscient creator.
I can see why you wish to lump the two, but it is not reality.
You really sound like an insecure cultist who spews everything you believe as all knowing fact...or in this case, “reality”.
But your trouble is too many people know better...
first of all...I.D. IS very much a specific belief in those of US that believe in a ominiscient creator...you don’t speak for us, not even the majority of us...
AND, secondly, “we” are not only Christian believers but also scientists:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org