Mike Goodrich <michaelgoodrich@cox.net> wrote in news:3FE5D7A5.9F17C037@cox.net:

> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in
>> news:3fe47177$0$303$ba620e4c@reader4.news.skynet.be:
>>
>> > John G. West
>> > Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
>> > December 1, 2002
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > --- ----- ----
>> >
>> > Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and
>> > Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of
>> > "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to
>> > conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes
>> > using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact,
>> > intelligent
>>
>> Intelligent design is a form of old-earth creationism, as opposed to
>> young-earth creationism which insists on the Genesis account being
>> literally and historically true in all respects.
>
> Blatantly and irresponsibly false.

I don't think so...especially when you consider Phil Johnson's expressed views. ID does not insist on the Genesis literalist heresy, but it still insists on a creator, even though its proponents spend a lot of time trying to downplay this. Let's be honest, they are still seeking to introduce evidence for God into science.

> Distortions, and the usual bankrupt anti-intellectual shenanigans, eh
> Oldridge?

How the hell would you know. You have to be able to read first.

> You must have lost any confidence in dealing with the controversy with
> any remaining vestige of honesty.

Nope....just dealt with too many of the disciples of this movement not to see what they are.

> ID has no theoretical tenets which cause it to be a stakeholder in
> creationism.

Except the "intelligent designer" Himself, which anyone who knows the principle players knows is God, but which they will not acknowledge in public because Johnson knows that, the moment they do, they will bump against constitutional problems getting their political agenda through.

It's an attempt to wedge God into the science classroom and do an end run around the US constitution by playing word games in a typically 'lawyerly fashion' (to quote the movie "My Cousin Vinny.")

Of course you don't like being exposed. It makes you feel all naked and visible and stuff!

-- Dave Oldridge ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.