Changes

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, another author at '''Answers in Genesis''', Dr. Carl Weiland, notes:

The reader is encouraged to read Dr. Purdom's full article, as it fairly and thoroughly deals with the objection at hand. Building on the same thoughts, the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]], Dr. [[Carl Weiland]], notes:

 

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with Biblical creationism.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp</ref>

The Intelligent Design Movement’s motivation appears to be the desire to challenge the blind acceptance of the materialistic, godless, naturalistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution. They confront many of the philosophical underpinnings of today’s evolutionary thinking. As a movement, they are unwilling to align themselves with biblical creationism.<ref name="CMI IDM">[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2560 CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement]</ref>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:

The IDM’s refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God, and in particular with the history in the Bible, means that:

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by AiG speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection.</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.

Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.<ref>See the 2004 book by CMI speaker Gary Bates: Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection. [footnote in original]</ref> In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse.

 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp</ref>

There is no philosophical answer to their opponents’ logically-deduced charge that the Designer was monstrous and/or inept (‘look at all the horrible, cruel, even defective things in the living world’), since bringing up the Fall is deliberately, tactically excluded. (However, the Fall was a major event in history, that changed everything. The world we are looking at now is a world that has been corrupted by sin, not the original world that God designed). Thus, the movement’s success could very likely even be counterproductive, by laying the Biblical God open to ridicule and contempt in new ways.<ref name="CMI IDM" />

</blockquote>

====Response to Creationist Objections====

====Response to Creationist Objections====

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so tthat the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just an archeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.

Intelligent design theorists appreciate the criticisms of creationists such as Purdom and Weiland, and, in fact, most intelligent design theorists are creationists themselves.  And while most intelligent design theorists would agree with Dr. Purdom that the Creator and his creation "reflect on each other," they would disagree that "the Creator and His creation cannot be separated."  The "separation" is epistomological, that is, there is a distinction between ''how'' one can know anything about the creation versus the creator. Just as a painter can be separated from a painting, so tthat the painting is labelled "anonymous", and just an archeologist can infer a designer of a clay pot without knowing the designer's actual identity, the ''fact'' of a creator in nature can be determined scientifically, but the ''specific'' creator cannot.