Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
I would say that ID is mostly a combination of theological and scientific ignorance. Sure with the wedge document there is some conspiratorial aspects to it, but for most of the followers, it is just ignorance.
What about you then? Care to defend the idea in a formal debate?
Its a specific thesis. I do not think it is vague at all. That Intelligent Design is disguised creationism attempting to get into public schools.
That is not specific at all given the fact that many think ID should not be in schools.
However, in every case where people have actively tried to push ID into the high school science classroom it has been because of religious reasons (aka disguised creationism). I would support this argument, if you wish.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
That is not specific at all given the fact that many think ID should not be in schools.
However, in every case where people have actively tried to push ID into the high school science classroom it has been because of religious reasons (aka disguised creationism). I would support this argument, if you wish.
But I would agree with you on that.
Grrr. lol.
Ok how about that the current ID movement was started for religious (as opposed to philosophical/scientific) reasons.
Ok how about that the current ID movement was started for religious (as opposed to philosophical/scientific) reasons.
Would you support that?
If you define the ID movement as the one started by Phillip Johnson then yes, I would support that. Beware of the Wedge Document.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
That is good advice... but what if I don't define it that way?
Then it will have to be on an individual basis for each ID proponent.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Everyone on the C/E forum generalizes the individual's screw ups or motivations on the movement at large all the time?
In general, the ID movement is a religious and political movement, not a scientific one. As with every generalization there are exceptions. If you want to talk about THE ID Movement that was started by Phillip Johnson and it is an overtly religious movement.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
Linear Mode
