I've always lumped intelligent design in with creationism, so I guess it's two seperate issues. I could easily see creationism labeled as unscientific after checking some more resources. I did have a page that was all about supporting evidence for creationism but can't seem to find it now. (Tons of references to ring-dating/etc).
Most of what I've read these days lumps creationism and Intelligent Design into one category, but after reading about 300 pages in 6 more articles tonight it seems very important to seperate these 2 things and that certainly makes me wrong about creationism.
Intelligent Design has supporting evidence in large clumps, and they aren't just ambigous quotes from religious text. Yale recognizes the theory of intelligent design as science, so I suppose to break down the original post.
Creationism: No
Intelligent Design: Yes?
Then again, thats a topic for debate too! A lot of people consider ID pseudo-science based on metaphysical assumptions.
As for supporting evidence on Intelligent Design:
Questia
www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp
"Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation."
I don't mind being wrong on both counts honestly, ignorance is curable and all that.
FliesOnly: Thanks much for the constructive reply.
edited long url to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 08-17-2005 09:12 AM