Intelligent Design: does not necessitate the Christian God and centers around the idea of irreducible complexity.
I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to:
The concept of intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.
That textbook [the later 1993 edition] was the first significant published use of the term. It’s the same book where they started with a creationism book and used hundreds of passages verbatim by replacing “creationism” with “intelligent design”. It was obviously a ploy to repackage creationism in a way that wouldn’t run foul of separation of church and state, and would thus allow it to be taught in public schools. Just as obviously, if “intelligent design” centered around the idea of irreducible complexity, why did it not figure prominently in the 1989 edition of the intelligent design textbook?
“I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to”
If your knowledge of this comes from Wikipedia no wonder your clueless… read the links I posted:
“Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone.”
As I said not necessarily the Christian God.
“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)”
From the discovery institute… again as I said the two are different…
Pointing out that the intelligent design movement had its roots in creationism does not imply the concepts are interchangable. Rather obviously, they are not. Creationism posits a supernatural creator. The idea that living things were intelligently designed does not.
I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to:
That textbook [the later 1993 edition] was the first significant published use of the term. It’s the same book where they started with a creationism book and used hundreds of passages verbatim by replacing “creationism” with “intelligent design”. It was obviously a ploy to repackage creationism in a way that wouldn’t run foul of separation of church and state, and would thus allow it to be taught in public schools. Just as obviously, if “intelligent design” centered around the idea of irreducible complexity, why did it not figure prominently in the 1989 edition of the intelligent design textbook?
“I guess you didn’t read the wikipedia article I linked to”
If your knowledge of this comes from Wikipedia no wonder your clueless… read the links I posted: “Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that “designer” could in theory be anything or anyone.”
As I said not necessarily the Christian God.
“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)”
From the discovery institute… again as I said the two are different…
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php
Do your homework...
Any further commentary please direct to the email address I failed to provide...
That fails to make your case. You claimed “ID is not different than creationism”. That is simply wrong—see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Pointing out that the intelligent design movement had its roots in creationism does not imply the concepts are interchangable. Rather obviously, they are not. Creationism posits a supernatural creator. The idea that living things were intelligently designed does not.
This is the real reason to ban debates with ID proponents.
It’s flipping annoying.
ID.png
Of course, that’s not a screen shot of the current Wikipedia page.
I also found this:
“Q1: Should ID be equated with creationism? (Yes.) [...]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design
All that proves is that you can’t trust Wikipedia to get its facts straight :-(