25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 355:
Line 355: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Kitzmiller trap.
: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)
: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)
Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate
believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara
Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy
online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.
"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the
only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for
the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my
research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional
American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual
complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises
virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.
User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.