The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Creationism VS ID

What the difference between Creationism and ID?

And has ID submitted anything for peer review? What's considered "peer review"?

thx

Tags: ID, creationism, design, intelligent

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DaniT on January 2, 2009 at 9:49pm

Ugh. Has anyone sifted through the rebuttal to the Dover trial documentary?
PBS Airs False Facts in its "Inherit the Wind" Version of the Kitzm...
Is there a rebuttal to this rebuttal!? Looks like so much work! *sigh*

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A.Ou on January 7, 2009 at 11:30pm

A good place to start research for a rebuttal would be to examine the Discovery Institute's involvement with the Dover case:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/kitzmiller-v-dov...

It's an interesting coincidence that we're talking about the PBS/NOVA documentary - I've just watched a portion of it in Biology AP/IB today. ;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug on January 3, 2009 at 1:46am

I had always thought ID used the evolutionary principal but claimed that "God" / and intelligent designer controlled and directed the process. I watched the doco Evolution on trial http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ about the Dover School case and it sounded like ID was saying individual animals were brought into existence whole and complete.

It is always interesting to ask supporters of ID just why an "Intelligent Designer" would create an animal like parasitic worms that only have human hosts like this one :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis

The usual reply is animals like this evolved after the fall from grace to make humans suffer ot We don't know.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Athianarchist on July 31, 2009 at 3:15pm

What never ceases to amaze me, is that despite even a working knowledge of evolution, cosmology and most importantly(in the case of the big bang) relativistic-quantum mechanics and particle physics. ID supporters still continue to make sweeping pseudo-scientific statements with nothing else to back them but the bible. Its not even about the lack of evidence or scientific analysis for me anymore, its the full lack of understanding towards the dominating theories of science of which they openly "challenge".