The Argument Clinic

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@Roy

No. The attributes of vertebrates should be considered a subset of the attributes of mammal.

So what? We weren’t talking about the attributes of ID in relation to the attributes of creationism. We were talking about ID in relation to creationism.

We were talking about the claims made by ID and creationism.^[1] These are far more akin to attributes of mammals than they are to mammals, which would be analogous to creationists.

ID : attributes of vertebrates :: creationism : attributes of mammals
IDers : vertebrates :: creationists : mammals.

Your attempt to try to shift the discussion to “attributes” is an illegitimate sleight-of-hand.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noticed that it was @Giltil that introduced “attributes”, so address your complaints at him, not me.

It’s quite evident that ID’s claim is more generic and creationism’s claim is more specific. With respect to the question of design, creationism is a form of ID, not the other way around.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noticed that I have already said that ID is more generic. The reasons that ID is a form of creationism, rather than the other way around, are that (i) creationism came first; (ii) ID uses arguments from creationism; (iii) ID originated as a way of getting round the laws against teaching creationism.

You have never come up with anything to challenge the conclusion that ID is the pieces of creationism that do not explicitly reference God or the Bible.^[2] Instead you keep accidentally confirming it.

Serious thinkers on the question of intelligent design, such as Ratzsch and Kojonen, understand that it’s logically separable from belief in creationism.

I’ve read Kojonen’s thesis. He is not a serious thinker.

---

1. I was, anyway. You kept trying to avoid talking about them. ↩︎

2. DI claims obviously don’t qualify. ↩︎