<And btw, you're claim that I don't accept ID is silly. I consiider ID a certainty.>
Well, it's about time you actually took a POSITION instead of just throwing stones.
So, you gonna post what ID is and WHAT IT IS you "accept"??? You KNOW ID proponants think evolution happens I presume.. and you have stated you DO NOT.
<No one sees ID as "an end run around creationism". You don't understand what ANYONE thinks about the subject.>
LOTS of scientists think that... despite your silly claims, why don't you post some writing by scientists explaining that the creationism = ID? For my side, do a simple web search you lazy sack:
<<Intelligent design is about politics and religion, not science ... adoption wars” — in effect encouraging teachers to do an end run around ...
www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html · Cached page>>
Here's the reality of the situation:
Behe and ID is rejected by the scientific community (by and large) AS SCIENCE... presumably because there IS NO science that he has enunciated. You have continuously refused to link ANY... NOT ONE BIT, of ID here... let alone what might qualify as a "theory", or "science" worthy of teaching in a SCIENCE CLASS.
The IDEA that there is "design in nature" is nothing new and you can hear the term used in virtually any biology class at any level.
FUTHER, I have a sneaky suspicion that when SCIENCE (religionists wont, they haven't a clue) DOES begin to fill in the ideas of ID with real data and description... YOU WACKOS are gonna run like hell away from the God it describes! LOL
You wacko's should follow BeHE... at least do some studying so you can discuss.
DAK |
