Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Kitzmiller trap.: source for argument
Line 351: Line 351:     
It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers.  If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science.  I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID.  [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 
It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers.  If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science.  I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID.  [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650

edits

Navigation menu