Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
@ Dr_Gary_Hurd, 7:52
- - “Intelligent Design Creationism has no basis in fact. The principle advocates have always had to admit this.”
Ref: Behe, Dembski, Johnson, and Nelson citations.
Those citations which have been circulated ad nauseum around the Internet are based on personal beliefs, not on ID research, and thus have no relevance in this debate.
Religious views do not predicate ID research, although in light of the evidence, they may well follow. You know of course where Dembski was speaking when he made the ‘Logos … of John’s gospel restated.” At a religious gathering.
And yes, as stated by Nelson and Johnson (1996), ID is not yet a developed theory, but nobody claims that it is (or was in 1996). It is actually an adjunct or alternative hypothesis for RM – NS. And as such, it fits the evidence.
By the way, there are few today, less the ID slammers, the tout the IDC conflation. You kind of gave yourself away ... ;~)
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.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.