# How Does Intelligent Design Differ from Creationism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Tags:** Design, Theology\ **Created:** [April 13, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773 "2019-04-13T22:20:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 1:57am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/254 "2019-04-17T01:57:27Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > Do you spontaneously want to read this book? In fact, yes. I bought a copy not long ago. I saw it referenced in another book, and the passages quoted sounded very interesting. I haven’t read it yet, but I intend to. But thanks for thinking of me. It’s good to know you have my educational best interests at heart. ---

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 9:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/255 "2019-04-17T09:10:11Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > Dogma, not description. No, validated theory. > [@Eddie](#): > > Huxley warned Darwin not to emphasize small steps so much, so doubts about this go way back. So what? Why are you talking about what Huxley said to Darwin over 100 years ago? Haven’t you read anything more recent on evolution? > [@Eddie](#): > > I’ve read virtually every printed word the man has ever published, and my remarks about the context of neo-Darwinism are entirely correct. You haven’t shown that when he wrote “evolution” what he really meant was “one neo-Darwnian mechanism, but not actual evolution”. You haven’t even shown (contrary to your previous claim), that he placed the word “Darwinian” in front of “evolution” or nearby it. Regardless of what you have (or more likely haven’t), read, the subject is what Behe wrote in this particular book, specifically this particular section of this book. As I asked Bill, why would he be talking about Darwinism anyway, instead of talking about the modern evolutionary synthesis? Why would he be talking about an outdated theory abandoned decades ago? In trying to defend him, you make him look ridiculous. > [@Eddie](#): > > No. All false. Unsubstantiated denial isn’t much of an argument. > [@Eddie](#): > > And you seem to be forgetting that you once insisted on a non-standard usage of “creationist” and were absolutely humiliated when I trotted out scores of counter-examples in everything from dictionaries to standard sources in the area. Christy on BioLogos ruled that I had correctly captured the standard meaning of the term. You seem to be referring to the time when I used the term “creationist” to describe you, and to describe the Discovery Institute and their ID agenda, and claimed I was using it as an insult. You appealed to Christy to back you up. Christy replied pointing out I had qualified my use of the word “creationist” very clearly, and saying you were “manufacturing accusations and charges”. Here are her words. > I think about three times in this thread Jon has said he considers TE/EC, YEC, and ID to all be creationist in the sense of believing God created humanity in his image, and he isn’t using it as an insult. I’m an “anyone” and I think you are manufacturing accusations and charges here. You do oppose Neo-Darwinian evolution. All the time. Why is this such a feather-ruffling thing? She also pointed out that your claim that some random unidentified people would read my use of the word “creationist” and think it meant something other than what I meant, was illegitimate. She said your “imagined audience is most likely indeed imaginary”. Here are her words. > That’s not super relevant seeing that you are 70+ posts in and are having a conversation with one person, and this imagined audience is most likely indeed imaginary. She also agreed with me that DI is a creationist organization, saying that if they are lumped in with Ham and Ross it’s because of what they publish on their own site. Here are her words. > Last time you tried to convince me that their website was not promoting creationist rhetoric and propaganda, you were unsuccessful, Eddie, and I’m not going to waste any more of my time pointing out to you examples of what is plain and obvious to anyone who spends any time reading evolution news and views. It is Discovery Institute’s own fault that they are lumped in with Ham and Ross because of what they publish on their website, it’s not because mean people on BioLogos misrepresent them. She also pointed out the hypocrisy of the Discovery Institute in claiming they are not creationist, while they (in her words), “litter their website with the exact same Creationist-flavor propaganda”. Here are her words. > Sure. People who say one thing (We have nothing to do with Creationism) and then do another (litter their website with the exact same Creationist-flavor propaganda designed to create in readers a distrust and rejection of mainstream science and to promote the idea that evolution is a theory in crisis) tend to elicit that kind of reaction because people resent hypocrisy. (Or better, what may look like hypocrisy to someone not as informed and well-read as you are on this issue.) So your memory seems somewhat poor, shall we say. The funny part was when you acknowledged that you would call Dembski and Meyer “ID creationists”. So after having complained bitterly that I had called them creationists, you ended up calling them creationists yourself. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 9:39am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/256 "2019-04-17T09:39:15Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > > [@Roy](#): > > > > Since I’ve seen the programme and read the published proceedings I have a very good idea how many young earth creationists presented papers there. But I note that you haven’t actually said I was _wrong_ . Since you apparently _were_ there, perhaps you could provide the percentage yourself. > > I didn’t care who was a young earth creationist and who wasn’t. I was there to hear the scientific discussion. I never buttonholed people and ask them what their religious beliefs were. So I never made a count. That’s why it surprises me that you were so sure how many were YECs. I was there, and never picked up that information, and you weren’t there, so how could you know? Because I’ve seen the list of presentations and read some of the proceedings, and so I know who wrote the papers presented there. > [@](#): > > Even if you did somehow get a program, what did you do, spend hours on the internet and making phone calls to find out the religious beliefs of each presenter? I didn’t need to. I recognised most of the names, and even if I hadn’t various knowledgeable people at the NCSE and Panda’s Thumb and other sites investigated the conference at the time, even going so far as to list the authors and whether they were YEC, OEC or other. > [@](#): > > You must have a lot of time on your hands, if you went to such lengths. No, I’m just much better at Googling than you are. > [@](#): > > Of those I know well enough to be sure, I counted only two YECs, but there could have been several others. YEC’s who (co-)authored presentations there included Andrew McIntosh, Jorge ‘welcher’ Fernandez, John Oller, John Sanford, John Baumgadner and Robert Compton. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 9:54am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/257 "2019-04-17T09:54:20Z")

Michael Callen has asked us not to dredge up old debates from BioLogos and restage them here, so I won’t try to justify myself in full. I did not say that Christy agreed with me about _everything_. Here is where she agreed with me: “I agree with you Eddie that you have been using the term creationism and creationist in their normal senses.” This was in reply to my lengthy word-study of actual usage (as opposed to the Burkean usage) of the terms, posted at ([The Popular Use of "Creationist" and "Creationism" in American Debates over Origins - General Discussion - The BioLogos Forum](https://discourse.biologos.org/t/the-popular-use-of-creationist-and-creationism-in-american-debates-over-origins/4427/21)). Anyone who wishes to recover the whole context would have to start from that page, and then work backwards to the previous discussions which led to my posting of my essay. I don’t recommend reading the hundreds of posts in several threads of that dispute, where we argue back and forth, but my word study itself might be a useful reference tool for some. It’s grayed out, but can still be read by clicking in the appropriate spot. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 10:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/258 "2019-04-17T10:02:48Z")

> [@Roy](#): > > YEC’s who (co-)authored presentations there included Andrew McIntosh, Jorge ‘welcher’ Fernandez, John Oller, John Sanford, John Baumgadner and Robert Compton. Is that the complete list? It comes out to less than half of the total. ---

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 10:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/259 "2019-04-17T10:03:14Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > I did not say that Christy agreed with me about _everything_ . But the way you represented her agreement with you made it look like she agreed with you about everything. In reality she agreed with you about how **you** were using the term, and said that the way I was using the term was **also perfectly ok** ; she even cited Biologos as an example in my favor. You somehow forgot to mention that, and completely misrepresented the facts. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 10:15am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/260 "2019-04-17T10:15:06Z")

Emphasis added: > [@Eddie](#): > > > [@Roy](#): > > > > YEC’s who (co-)authored presentations there _ **included** _ Andrew McIntosh, Jorge ‘welcher’ Fernandez, John Oller, John Sanford, John Baumgadner and Robert Compton. > > Is that the complete list? It comes out to less than half of the total. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 10:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/261 "2019-04-17T10:23:44Z")

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#): > > In reality she agreed with you about how **you** were using the term, To be more precise, she agreed that the way I was using the term was the _normal_ use of term in popular usage: > [@Eddie](#): > > “I agree with you Eddie that you have been using the term creationism and creationist in their normal senses.” Yes, she also said that if people qualified their use of the term, so that readers knew what was meant, then different usage was OK, too. But way back on the original thread (which I would have to dig up) you used the term _without_ qualification with a meaning that was different from typical usage in these debates, and it was that usage that I was protesting, not out of any pedantry but because your usage was misleading readers there about the position of Behe and/or Discovery. Anyhow, the place to debate this is not here. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 11:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/262 "2019-04-17T11:18:50Z")

Fine, but you still haven’t justified the “half” figure. Are you planning to do so? Or leave it as an undefended assertion? I don’t care what the number is, personally; I’m merely pointing out that you haven’t documented it yet. And if you want to modify your statement to “a significant fraction of the papers…” or the like, go ahead. I’m not holding you to anything. But let’s say for the sake of argument that at one particular conference half the papers were by YECs. So what? That doesn’t prove it is characteristic of ID leadership across the board. If you look at the Discovery Fellows, I think you will find that YECs account for nowhere near half. So what is your point, exactly? We already knew that ID embraced evolutionist, YEC, and OEC positions. Among the rank and file followers, YEC may be the most popular position, but that’s not clear, and we have no accurate figures. Among the leaders at Discovery, it looks as if OEC is the predominant position. Indeed, there might be more “undeclareds” than YECs among the Fellows and executive. So again, what would you find instructive even if you had complete figures for each camp, from top to bottom of the movement? What do we learn from that? ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 11:55am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/263 "2019-04-17T11:55:28Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > Fine, but you still haven’t justified the “half” figure. Are you planning to do so? Or leave it as an undefended assertion? I don’t care what the number is, personally; I’m merely pointing out that you haven’t documented it yet. Well if you don’t care, I won’t bother. Anyone who does care can easily find out for themselves, or ask me themselves. I’ve already documented more YECs among the authors than you thought were at the entire conference. > [@](#): > > But let’s say for the sake of argument that at one particular conference half the papers were by YECs. So what? So you, who claim to have attended those presentations, couldn’t tell they were being given by young earth creationists. When religious beliefs weren’t mentioned, the arguments of young earth creationists and intelligent design advocates proved indistinguishable. The point is the same point I made at the start of this thread - that the arguments made by creationists and IDers are the same, and the main difference between them is that creationists usually announce their religious intent, whereas IDers do not. _You_ are now evidence that this is true, because when the creationists were _not_ mentioning their religion, making that difference unobservable, you couldn’t tell the creationists and IDers apart. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/264 "2019-04-17T12:48:06Z")

> [@Roy](#): > > Anyone who does care can easily find out for themselves, or ask me themselves. I don’t care, but I’m asking anyway. What’s the number? > [@Roy](#): > > I’ve already documented more YECs among the authors than you thought were at the entire conference. Obviously false. The context of your original remark was about the authors of the papers, not the number of attendees at the conference. When I said that I could think of only two for sure, I was talking about authors of the papers. And even then I didn’t say there weren’t more than two. > [@Roy](#): > > The point is the same point I made at the start of this thread - that the arguments made by creationists and IDers are the same, and the main difference between them is that creationists usually announce their religious intent, whereas IDers do not. > > _You_ are now evidence that this is true, because when the creationists were _not_ mentioning their religion, making that difference unobservable, you couldn’t tell the creationists and IDers apart. Major confusion on your part here. With regard to the _conference_ (a different thing from the topic question above), I was not making a distinction between “creationists” and “IDers.” I was making distinction between _different kinds of IDers_ – YEC-IDers, OEC-IDers, and evolutionist-IDers. All of them were represented at the conference. So if you meant “evolutionist-IDers” vs “creationist-IDers” you had better say so. Next, you are confusing persons with positions. ID as a _position_ is distinguishable from creationism. That doesn’t mean the same _person_ can’t hold to both. A conservative isn’t automatically a vegetarian, but a person can be both. And an IDer isn’t automatically a creationist, but the same person can be both. So the existence of YEC-creationists doesn’t establish that ID is the same thing as creationism. It merely establishes that the two positions aren’t incompatible. So it wouldn’t matter if _everyone_ at the conference happened to be YEC, that wouldn’t prove that all ID proponents everywhere were creationists. The way you establish whether or not two things are the same is not to look at non-required similarities between the two, but to examine their essences. The essences of ID and of any form of creationism are different. The material I linked to above explains how. But you won’t discuss the statements. ---

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 12:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/265 "2019-04-17T12:49:16Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > I was making distinction between _different kinds of IDers_ – YEC-IDers, OEC-IDers, and evolutionist-IDers. All of them were represented at the conference. Which of these three groups are creationists, in your view? Bear in mind that you’ve already identified Meyer and Dembski as creationists. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 1:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/266 "2019-04-17T13:38:52Z")

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#): > > Which of these three groups are creationists, in your view? Bear in mind that you’ve already identified Meyer and Dembski as creationists. If you read my word study on the term, or even if you don’t, but just follow my regular and consistent usage, the answer is obvious. YEC-IDers are creationists and OEC-IDers are creationists. Evolutionist-IDers are not creationists. It’s implicit in the way I’ve consistently used the term “creationist.” And of course, it goes without saying, by the hyphenated names, that all of these groups are _also_ within the ID fold. ID is conceptually distinguishable from creationism, but the two positions can be held by the same person. Meyer and Dembski are _both_ ID proponents _and_ creationists. But what makes them creationists is something above and beyond what being ID proponents commits them to. ---

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/267 "2019-04-17T14:13:31Z")

**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Burke](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jonathan_burke/32/21_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Burke](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jonathan_Burke)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/268 "2019-04-17T14:33:18Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > If you read my word study on the term, or even if you don’t, but just follow my regular and consistent usage, the answer is obvious. YEC-IDers are creationists and OEC-IDers are creationists. Evolutionist-IDers are not creationists. It’s implicit in the way I’ve consistently used the term “creationist.” But given that your definition of ID is opposed to what you call “the Darwinian explanation of evolution”, in what sense are they “Evolutionsist-IDers”? You have previously said that the common bond between YEC-IDers, OEC-IDers, and what you call “evolutionist IDers” is their opposition to what you call “anti-Darwinism”. You have also said previously that your objection to evolutionary theories is whether or not they meet your theological requirements, specifically with regard to providence and divine sovereignty. So it’s clear your anti-evolutionism is theological rather than scientific, putting you in the same camp as Ken Ham. ---

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/269 "2019-04-17T14:40:34Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > Not if they are books that people keenly interested in origins issues (which everyone here is) would spontaneously want to read anyway, and not if they are books that professional biologists who declare reverence for the judgment of Futuyma would spontaneously want to read anyway. Scientists who are keenly interesting in origins issues read the technical papers. > [@Eddie](#): > > It stuns me that you haven’t _already_ read Wagner’s book, or at least put it on your must-read list. Then be stunned. In the mean time, I will be reading about Wagner’s research in peer reviewed articles. > [@Eddie](#): > > You could read Denton’s book in the time you invest in one week of debating here, and it’s not as if it’s on a topic that doesn’t interest you. You could discuss Denton’s book, but you don’t. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/270 "2019-04-17T14:48:16Z")

> [@Eddie](#): > > > [@Roy](#): > > > > Anyone who does care can easily find out for themselves, or ask me themselves. > > I don’t care, but I’m asking anyway. What’s the number? Since you don’t care, I won’t waste my time checking. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/271 "2019-04-17T20:23:36Z")

> [@Jonathan\_Burke](#): > > But given that your definition of ID is opposed to what you call “the Darwinian explanation of evolution”, in what sense are they “Evolutionsist-IDers”? The answer to that is so obvious that shouldn’t need even to ask it. I defined evolution as “descent with modification.” That is Joshua’s definition as well. Behe accepts descent with modification, and therefore is an evolutionist by my definition. One can be an evolutionist without being a “neo-Darwinist.” One can be an evolutionist while questioning the correctness of any _particular_ account of evolutionary mechanism. > [@Jonathan\_Burke](#): > > You have also said previously that your objection to evolutionary theories is whether or not they meet your theological requirements, specifically with regard to providence and divine sovereignty. No; theological considerations are not my only concern, and you couldn’t possibly be unaware of that, having interacted with me for some years. I think that some versions of evolutionary theory explain evolution in terms of mechanisms that are not only scientifically inadequate but also at least potentially pose problems for Christian theology. I think that any purely or even primarily “Darwinian” explanation of evolution has both problems. I spent years outlining this in great detail on BioLogos, and I don’t want to do it all over again here, especially since so many of the same people are here and already know my views. And of course, many of the scientists here have agreed that classical neo-Darwinism is now regarded as inadequate even on the science side. But classical neo-Darwinism is the still the default popular exposition of evolution, as we see in Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, etc. So the ID folks have done a service by poking holes in it, in popular books read by the same people who read Dawkins and Miller. Also, it’s not “my” theological requirements that are at stake. I don’t belong to some little sect off the mainstream of Christianity that I invented myself or that someone else invented in the past 150 years or so. It’s the central stream of historical Christian thought I’m concerned about. Jon Garvey has the same concerns. > [@Jonathan\_Burke](#): > > So it’s clear your anti-evolutionism Right away this is wrong, and I don’t even have to read the rest of the sentence, since my position is not anti-evolutionary. If wrote, “so it’s clear that your Catholicism…” you could cut me off right away on the grounds that you’re not Catholic. You have the bad habit of insisting that people believe something even when they tell you they don’t. That’s not good-faith debate and it’s certainly not a Christian approach to the treatment of other people. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/272 "2019-04-17T20:28:37Z")

> [@T\_aquaticus](#): > > You could discuss Denton’s book, but you don’t. I just discussed one aspect of it with Argon, on another thread. He was interested enough in front-loading hypotheses to acquire some detailed knowledge of what Denton had said (I don’t know if he read the whole book, but he appears to know the rough contents of it), and he made some specific remarks, to which I responded. > [@T\_aquaticus](#): > > Scientists who are keenly interesting in origins issues read the technical papers. Which I never denied. But you never explained why all the greatest figures in evolutionary theory for the past 150 years, including Futuyma, have written books and read many books on the subject, and why you don’t follow their example. ---

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773/273 "2019-04-17T20:30:24Z")

> [@Roy](#): > > I won’t waste my time checking. In other words, you don’t have the information handy. You made a claim of “half” without the facts either in front of you, or in your memory. And now you refuse to back up your claim, when asked. That pretty well tells the story. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773.md?page=12) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-does-intelligent-design-differ-from-creationism/5773.md?page=14)