None. Don’t have any interest in ID crap.
1 Like
Ah, well, then, I will give weight to your evaluation with that in mind. 
3 Likes
The scientific creationism and intelligent design movements have both similarities and differences.
The main similarity is that both attempt to use scientific results to show that the Earth and human beings were created by God. Other similarities include their arguments and techniques.
The main difference is that scientific creationists admit that they mean God, and explicitly refer to the Bible and events described therein, while IDers avoid mentioning God or the Bible.
6 Likes
(Yawn). ID is creationism. Give it up, @Eddie . Your cover has been blown.
Read it and weep:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
1 Like
One of the founders of ID does not just have doubts. He knows that there is no such thing as an “ID theory”:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
- Philip E. Johnson, Berkeley Science Review (Spring 2006)
3 Likes
No. It’s similar to how, if someone takes a pig and smears lipstick on its face, they might try to convince you it isn’t still a pig.
2 Likes
Hahaha. Very nice… 
1 Like
This is exactly as I see it. The attempted and successful link made by the evolutionist lobby of ID to Creationism was based on faulty reasoning.
If you keep the argument simple it is a valid scientific observation.
But Bill, you’re a creationist, aren’t you?
1 Like
It depends how you define creationist. I am not trying to tie science back to a literal interpretation of the bible.
I do believe we are in a created universe the detailed how is still an open question.
Let me clarify. What I mean is that you reject common descent of taxa at many taxonomic levels. You reject common descent of humans and chimps and of any two species that differ by more than 1% in aligned DNA sequences. Isn’t that true?
John I know its frustrates you that I don’t take a position so I will. I think the odds of common descent between humans and chimps simply by isolated populations and reproductions is low. If I were a betting man and you and I were standing at the pearly gates I would bet against this hypothesis.
If guiding is allowed in the hypothesis than I would not bet against common descent of humans and chimps. Joshua’s hypothesis is perhaps one form that guiding might take.
You imagine that you have taken a position, but it’s so unclear and ambiguous that you might as well not have. It also conflicts with previous statements, when you rejected common descent within birds and within crocodylians.
2 Likes
I don’t reject common descent within birds and crocks I just don’t think you have made the case to confirm it at any reasonable level of certainty.
I think the case for crocks is stronger than for birds. I know I misread some of the sequence data but despite that there are no outliers like the Ostrich and you don’t have the problematic explanation like loss of flight in the case of Crocs.
There is no rational reason for your doubt here, and I infer that it comes from a desire not to believe. You reject evidence you don’t understand, and thus the only reason for rejection must be prior contrary belief. Might as well admit it.
No, you never even looked at the sequence data. You misread a couple of figures.
Why is loss of flight a problematic explanation?
Face up to it, Bill. You reject the evidence for common descent because of a prior preference for separate creation.
2 Likes
You have a tendency to misread. Bill was referring to loss of flight in birds.
1 Like
I know, it was just too good to pass up. 
I too would like to hear Bill’s explanation as to why loss of flight is a problem for evolution. Not only have some birds lost flight because it didn’t provide a selective advantage (use it or lose it) in some bird species the wings have actually been repurposed as swim fins (i.e Galapagos cormorants)
You’re saying Galapagos cormorants use their wings to swim? I’m dubious. Penguins do that; auks do that. But cormorants don’t.
Galapagos cormorants do. They have evolved to be flightless waterbirds who swim underwater to catch fish.
Galapagos Flightless Cormorants: Birds that Swim
Flightless cormorants have special adaptations for swimming, including solid bones, and fur-like feathers. They usually dive at depths of around 10-15 meters, but are capable of dives as deep as 80 meters.