Um, okaaay . . .

Anyway, CTD, I thought you might be linking me to an article somewhere. The thread you linked me to never really got anywhere as far as I can tell. If you want to go back there and try to elaborate on your proposed hypothesis, that's fine.



Which is an oxymoron until you can show creationism to be scientific. That's why the court ruled that this book could not be used in science classes.



It originated as a creationist text. The revisions to turn it into an ID text were not significant and most of them consisted of replacing "creationist" with "ID." The God of the Bible is now an unnamed creator. It is specious to claim that this is anything other than Biblical creationist religious teaching. In order to strengthen your case, maybe you can present an example of a person who is not a fundamentalist Christian yet who accepts ID. My thinking is that they'll be pretty hard to find.



Explain?



I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a specific example. Before the invention of the microscope, when people realised that large things look very different when viewed on a very small scale, do you think many people would have believed it if you'd told them about the existence of atoms? After all, you can't see them. Common substances would have appeared to be irreducible. But now we know about atoms, and quarks and leptons and gluons, and all sorts of things with crazy names. We're not even sure if they are the final reductions of matter. How would we ever learn about these things if we delcare them to be irreducibly complex, and walk away?

While scientists in other countries continue to learn about the world and how it works, it appears that you would have American scientists abandon their labs and get all their information from the Bible. While people then congratulate themselves about how holy they are, they will be technologically surpassed by much of the rest of the developed world. Fortunately this is unlikely to happen.