N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Carl Sachs, from http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....146016: | Quote | If one defines “design,” as Dembski does, as “the set-theoretic complement of the disjunction regularity-or-chance,” then yes.
Under that definition, everything that is neither ascribable to regularity or to chance must be a result of design.
Therefore, arguments against NDT (neo-Darwinian theory) are arguments in favor of design theory. |
IDists insist that ID and creationism are different. However, creationists also used to present arguments against evolution (many of the same arguments that you will hear from IDists). If all arguments against evolution are arguments for ID, then doesn't that mean that ID is the same as creationism? (Or Carl Sachs could be full of crap. Or both. I prefer 'Both'.)
|
