Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Dec. 29 2007,11:35) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 29 2007,11:08) | | Something that is built of the arguments of creationism is not legitimately called creationism? Sorry, this is another case where complacency implies complicity, and I won't be taken in like that. The public needs to know that the "intelligent design" movement is simply a re-labeled subset of "creation science", which was the re-labeled content of "scientific creationism", which was a re-labeled subset of "creationism". I can back that up with evidence, and have done so. Last I heard, in US courts truth was an allowed defense. |
You, sir, lack all integrity. Whether you agree with me or not, you have highly misled the public with your twisting of the facts. ID is not a re-labled subset of creation science. That is a bold faced lie (a word I've only used twice in the four years I've been involved in this debate).
You can twist your little "subset" definition to fit your needs, but the fact remains that ID and creation science are *not* the same thing, and your use of the term IDC makes it appear as such.
The "evidence" that you use to back up your claims is a twisted muddle of reasoning, and the large majority of those from the general public have *no clue* as to what creation science and ID entails, which adds to the problems caused by your use of the term IDC which you love to scatter throughout the media. |
FtK, read carefully through this thread, then come back and tell us who the liars are. Lenny and others did a great job of showing Paul Nelson how his ID musings are nothing more than repackaged creationist canards, and Nelson disappeared after it became apparent. The Further Debate page on the Explore Evolution site is still empty, just like Nelson's promise to open it up.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
