Then by the same token creationism and ID are the same.
Well, that depends who you listen to.
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (
Of Pandas and People, first draft.)
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." (
Of Pandas and People, as it was eventually published.)
Are you kidding me? I'll kindly remind you what the Scopes Trial was all about. Proponents of evolution said that schools must make a special dispensation for the theory. They won that case.
What you mean by "special dispensation", I have no idea. The "Monkey Law" was targetted specifically against evolution:
"
AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof."
Then what else am I to deduce, Percy? Nobody was particularly outraged by phrenology. But it appears that some people are going to implode at the mere mention of ID.
No-one is
promoting phrenology any more. (Which didn't stop Stephen Jay Gould from having a go at it.) Crackpots aren't trying to get phrenology taught in schools. If someone was proposing that we should teach children to distinguish the inferiority of black people by observing the shapes of their heads, I for one would be more than a little perturbed.
Its real simple. Nothing can't create everything. Nothing that exists within the physical world did not come to exist without causation.
Too many negatives. But when you've unscrambled what you're trying to say, would you like to say what this dubious proposition can possibly have to do with Intelligent Design?
Even supposing that was the case, why is that evolutionists are allowed to dismiss Haeckle, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Archaeoraptor, Peppered moths etc, for the demonstrable frauds they are, and get to say that those stains do not speak for the majority?
Because five cases of alledged fraud over a century or so obviously do
not represent the majority of biological research.
You must also have been on these boards long enough to know that you are lying when you claim that Nebraska Man and Peppered Moth research involved "fraud", and, just in case you are under the illusion that telling known lies helps your case (which would explain the behavior of many creationists), then let me inform you that it does not. It makes your tissue-thin case look even flimsier. In the case of the Peppered Moth, I may add, your spiteful lies involve slandering persons still living. Do you people ever feel ashamed of yourselves?
Archaeoraptor, of course, was an attempted fraud on scientists, not one perpetrated by them.
Despite your valiant attempts to read the mind of persons unknown, we have no idea who was behind Piltdown Man or why.
That leaves you with one definite fraudulent scientist, Haeckel, who was trying to prop up a hypothesis other than the theory of evolution.
And this is the best you can come up with?
Thanks for playing.
They're called theories for a reason, Percy. It means we don't know fully.
That is not the reason, and, dammit, you know that perfectly well too.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
