Joined: Oct. 2006
Kairosflatus takes offense:
|But, this is not the main issue for this post.|
That comes up when Mr Hamby provides a “definition” of ID:
Intelligent design suggests that the complexity of the universe cannot be explained by evolution alone, and must also be attributed to a creator or supernatural being.
The noive. KF sets them straight:
|They both chose to make an inaccurate, strawman definition of ID, which sets up the mis-framing of ID as an unjustifiable injection of “religion” and “the supernatural”on science and science education.|
Meanwhile, downpage, StephenB makes clear that there is but one alternative to aimless Darwinsm for anyone who is capable of reasoning in the abstract:
|According to the Bible, God created the universe so that He and His creatures could enter into an eternal, loving relationship. Christians, insofar as they accept that teaching, can readily understand their role in the cosmos and the broader context in which they find life’s meaning. In this context, God acted as both creator and designer: God brought time, space, and matter into existence and then “formed” man out of the dust of the earth.|
CNN, how DARE you conflate the "design" of "intelligent design" with the actions of a supernatural being?
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington