Changes
Unrevert legitimate post and reply.
:::::I fully agree that some form of creationism is the only valid way to see the world. But if this encyclopedia is really going to follow true Christian values, why is the concept of Intelligent Design given so much space? I recently posted a comment about Christian values on the "expelled" article and it was removed in short order. From what you tell me above, Gap Theory - whether you accept it or not - is a lot closer to the truth than ID is, yet ID has vastly more supportive text than the Creationism article. Why should this be? I am genuinely confused. [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:31, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Interesting question! I don't agree, though, that the Gap Theory is closer to the truth than ID. But it depends on how you understand ID. ID, I would say, is merely an attempt to show scientifically that there is evidence of design. That's it. Sure, some ID people believe in an old universe, and some ID people believe in some form of evolution, and ID doesn't make any claims about who the designer is, but at its core, it's simply a scientific attempt to show evidence of design. In that sense, it is ''not inconsistent'' with the Bible at all, as the Gap Theory is. ID is not "Christian", but it is not ''anti-Christian'' either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would say that anyone glancing at this site would say that it supports ID rather than Biblical Literalism. As to no conflict I'm not so sure. ID includes (at least according to its main proponent, Behe) Common Descent and long atheistic timescales which would have the Dinosaurs extinct well before humanity. I, of course, believe that they died in the Gap - but I'm frankly surprised that you accept it here without objection.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: What false impressions people might get from a ''glance'' at the site is beside the point. ID (usually?) ''assumes'' common descent, long ages, etc., but I believe that I'm right in saying that they are not what ID is about. ID's point is to argue that there is evidence of design, not to argue for common descent or long ages; the latter are merely the background framework into which ID is set. Yes, YEC disagrees on those particular points, but not on ID itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
