quote:
Yes, when you consider them compared with the total number of people that could be considered important in the founding and develop of ID theory. I list them not because they are the only non-creationists, but rather because I have actual data about their previous and current beliefs.
Five is many. Okay....
quote:
By anti-creationist, I mean they held and continue to hold beliefs that are in contradiction with the literal biblical account.
Which literal biblical account? And, given that there are different accounts that say different things, isn't it pretty much impossible not to hold a belief in contradiction of one or another?
quote:
However, the fact that, among other groups, old and young earth creationists weighed in together to develop and support intelligent design would seem to imply that intelligent design isn’t derived exclusively from young earth creationism.
Ah yes. Another tried and true creo stratagem, moving the goalposts. First, the discussion was whether ID has creationist roots. Now, it's whether ID has young earth creationist roots. Tell you what, you decide what point you want to argue and let us know when you've fixed on one. But, if you're going to try to create a distinction between OEC and YEC, you better provide a compelling reason for that distinction. To those of us who understand science and creationism, OEC and YEC are virtually the same in their rejection of and attack upon science, although they disagree on some of the rather minor details.
quote:
I’m not trying to be offensive or gratuitously rude, but you really should learn more about intelligent design before posting on boards like this.
So, you wanna compare qualifications? Suits me.
I've been studying creationism and ID since the mid 80s. In college, I majored in Philosophy with an emphasis on Philosophy of Science. My honors thesis was on creationism, and I got an A on it from Dr. Philip Kitcher, author of
Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. I've read dozens of books on ID and creationism, and hundreds of websites. I've also read a great deal about evolution. Note carefully, I'm not providing my credentials to prove that I'm right, I'm providing my credentials to show that I do know what I'm talking about.
I'm not trying to be offensive or gratuitously rude either, but accusing those who criticize ID or creationism as simply not understanding it is another hoary creo gambit, and usually wrong.
quote:
I would recommend reading through Dembski’s Design Revolution, for starters.
Well, that certainly wouldn't be a start for me. In any event, at this site, we don't simply swap citations to authority back and forth. You are expected to provide the argument yourself in your own words. So tell me, what does Dembski say in
Design Revolution? In particular, since you were responding to my description of the creationist game plan, tell me why that book doesn't fit with my description. You might begin by demonstrating that it's any different from Steps 3 and 4. Specifically, you could address the preface, which Wiki describes this way:
The book begins with a preface polemic where Dembski maintains that the harsh critiques that his work has received to date by the scientific community, which he describes as "dogmatic Darwinists and scientific naturalists," is typical of what previous geniuses and innovators have been subjected to by science orthodoxy
Isn't it amazing that I haven't even read the book, yet it fits so well with the creo game plan I outlined?
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
