Lee said: "You’re way off base, Rick. Those who favor a literal Genesis, generally oppose the ID concept."
LOL!!
Right. Maybe the average Louisiana Baptist parishioner wouldn't support your supposedly secular ID. But the people who are keeping the ID "manufactroversy" alive would stop all ID support if they could achieve their real goals - Christianity in schools.
The Discovery Institute is far and away the leading advocacy group for Intelligent Design.
The Discovery Institute has clearly stated its mission in "The Wedge Strategy", the document written by Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer. They said "design theory" was one of the tools they'd promote:
"* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Sure Lee - that doesn't sound much like a Christian religious agenda, does it?
Let's talk about who FUNDS Intelligent Design advocacy. Science boosters (sarcasm) like: Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. - radical Christian Reconstructionist and major contributor to anti-evolution legislation, anti-evolution school board policy, and to Intelligent Design advocacy. Or The Mclellan Foundation, promoting the infallibility of scripture.
Former members of the Discovery Institute say that its mission is Christian conservatism.
Intelligent Design is kept alive by people who want to erode naturalism in science to make room for the Christian God.
Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski says it quite well: "The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
In practice, Lee, Intelligent Design is just another branch of Christian apologetics.
As for your statement: "Government funding, academic tenure, and the ability to publish in scientific journals are non-existent."
I must LOL again, even louder.
Lee, how much money is available for someone who can ACTUALLY convincingly prove the hand of a designer in nature? Think about it.
If ID had anything, it would get funding. Stop playing the victim when you know very well that actual scientists capable of proving the supernatural would have access to some of the largest funding sources in the world.
ID fails for lack of SCIENCE. ID fails for lack of EVIDENCE. ID fails in SPITE of the billions available from Christians who would dearly love to prove God exists.
ID only succeeds as religious apologetics and as a political rallying point for stealth religiously-motivated legislation like we're discussing here.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
RickK writes:
Lee said: "You’re way off base, Rick. Those who favor a literal Genesis, generally oppose the ID concept."
LOL!!
Right. Maybe the average Louisiana Baptist parishioner wouldn't support your supposedly secular ID. But the people who are keeping the ID "manufactroversy" alive would stop all ID support if they could achieve their real goals - Christianity in schools.
The Discovery Institute is far and away the leading advocacy group for Intelligent Design.
The Discovery Institute has clearly stated its mission in "The Wedge Strategy", the document written by Phillip Johnson and Stephen Meyer. They said "design theory" was one of the tools they'd promote:
"* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Sure Lee - that doesn't sound much like a Christian religious agenda, does it?
Let's talk about who FUNDS Intelligent Design advocacy. Science boosters (sarcasm) like: Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. - radical Christian Reconstructionist and major contributor to anti-evolution legislation, anti-evolution school board policy, and to Intelligent Design advocacy. Or The Mclellan Foundation, promoting the infallibility of scripture.
Former members of the Discovery Institute say that its mission is Christian conservatism.
Intelligent Design is kept alive by people who want to erode naturalism in science to make room for the Christian God.
Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski says it quite well: "The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
In practice, Lee, Intelligent Design is just another branch of Christian apologetics.
As for your statement: "Government funding, academic tenure, and the ability to publish in scientific journals are non-existent."
I must LOL again, even louder.
Lee, how much money is available for someone who can ACTUALLY convincingly prove the hand of a designer in nature? Think about it.
If ID had anything, it would get funding. Stop playing the victim when you know very well that actual scientists capable of proving the supernatural would have access to some of the largest funding sources in the world.
ID fails for lack of SCIENCE. ID fails for lack of EVIDENCE. ID fails in SPITE of the billions available from Christians who would dearly love to prove God exists.
ID only succeeds as religious apologetics and as a political rallying point for stealth religiously-motivated legislation like we're discussing here.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.