Intelligent design is not Creationism. The best your extended look at my link can come up with is ID as a system of inquiry to establish what the truth is regarding origins of life on earth.

Uhhmmmm, no. It looks at the spectrum of Creationism, and places it between theistic evolution (a form of creationism) and Creation Science (another form of creationism). So, the conclusion is ID is a form of creationism. Is it Young Earth Creationism? Hard to say as some IDers refuse to answer questions about the age of the earth, while others (notably Behe) will. Is it Creation Science? Not the kind coming out of CRS. But the bottom line is that it is a type of Creationism.

I was over at Paul Nelson�s blog and I saw that he is not happy about your distortion of his remarks re: the Davidson paper.

Nelson got caught distorting what a scientist wrote, and I called him on it. He came up with some bullshit response about how it isn't classical neodarwinism. Well no shit, Davidson, et. al. isn't classical neodarwinism as that is a 50 year old area of study.

In personal communications with Davidson, he was not happy with what Nelson wrote. IMO, It will be a cold day in Hell before Davidson ever talks politely to Nelson again.

I was over at Paul Nelson's blog and I saw that he is not happy about your distortion of his remarks re: the Davidson paper.

Label the stages in a butterfly life cycle from egg to larva to pupa to adult. Explain to us, how each of the stages, would not be seen by the casual observer as a separate species.

Oh for crying outloud.

There are definitely forms of creationism that hold that species to not change into other species (or kinds).

Fine.

Label the stages in a butterfly life cycle from egg to larva to pupa to adult. Explain to us, how each of the stages, would not be seen by the casual observer as a separate species.

Please stop.

Your own link casts doubt on your beliefs. Googling for the first thing that fits your preconcieved notion is not generally a good idea and always a poor replacement for more detailed research.

Although ID theorists such as Behe and Johnson differed among themselves about the history of life on earth, they typically downplayed efforts to harmonize science and Scripture in favor of a concerted attack on naturalistic evolution. "When the Goliath [of naturalistic evolution] has been tumbled," they reasoned, "there will be time to work out more details of how creation really did work." On the spectrum of opinion regarding creation and evolution, they collectively occupied a position between theistic evolutionism (embraced by many members of the evangelical American Scientific Affiliation) and scientific creationism (promoted by the Creation Research Society).

Note, even being a theistic evolutionists would make one a Creationist (a Creationists whose views on the evolution of life is congruent with modern evolutionary theory).

http://www.meta-library.net/history/intro-frame.html

Creationism History: Topic Index

These history topics, provided by Dr. Ron Numbers, cover the comparitively recent science-and-religion issue of �Creationism��the view that the Biblical account of creation in Genesis 1 is in some respect a literal and historical description. A literal interpretation of the six-day special creation account in scripture is often hard to reconcile with current scientific theories on the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It seems as though they are in conflict. For some people this difficulty suggests that scripture is not a reliable source of knowledge (or at a minimum a poor source of scientific explanations) and for some it implies contemporary science must be in error.

Your ignorance of the topic is showing. ID is Creationism by definition.

* There is nothing in evolution that suggests life in whatever form, wasnâ??t created. HAve you changed, since YOU were created?

Yes, I grew taller and so forth. I know this isn't what you meant, and that you meant speciation. However, sudden speciation is precisely what you should be looking for as it would disprove evolutionary theory (and after all God can do anything like turn sticks into snakes). So this is a failure of your side of the debate.

* There is nothing in creationism that suggests man has not changed over time.

Depends on which form of creationism you are talking about. There are definitely forms of creationism that hold that species to not change into other species (or kinds). In fact, they call such study baraminology (IIRC).

RJN,

I have never seen any comments by anti-science types on your blog. I donâ??t think I have ever seen a creationist commenting either.

Typically they come in the form of, "I believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution." It gets back the the notion of "kinds" in creationism. God created the various "kinds" of animals and variation within "kinds" is possible, but one "kind" cannot change into another "kind" no matter how much variation takes place.

The childish hand rubbing glee you show when thrown a tidbit does, however, serve to diminish ones opinion of you.

Oh lighten up. I was just being a little sarcastic. Geez, learn to take a joke.

From what I have seen many intelligent people, with a respect for science, have politely discussed Intelligent Design, which is not Creationism, here. But of course; they are chumps and one canâ??t disrespect them enough.

Intelligent design is Creationism. Creationism holds that at least some aspects of the nature that we observed were created. Example, any irreducibly complex biological structure. The ID argument is that such things could not arise via nature and were the product of design (i.e. somebody or something made them). In short these biological structures were created. Further, that there is a designing intelligence behind said designs. Creationism pure and simple.

As for people being chumps, more like ignorant. When one says, "I believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution," it is a sign of ignorance. The problem is that the very same processes are at work in microevolution as in macroevolution. So it is like saying, "I believe in X, but I don't believe in X." Logically it makes no sense. At all.

Some people put forward the probability argument as: look at the sequence of events, form primitive early microbe to man, what are the chances of that? Hence evolutionary theory is wrong. However, that is precisely the samething is saying, look at that sequence of heads and tails I got when flipping a coin 1,000 times. The probability of getting that precise sequence in 1 ove 2^1000 (i.e., damn small). So that is impossible. But they just did it!

The problem isn't stupid people, but people who are unfamiliar with the topics they are addressing such as evolutionary theory, probability, and so forth. Case in point: Bithead. He points out that no organism has morphed into another species. True enough. However, that is NOT what evolutionary theory implies. In fact, that would evidence AGAINST evolutionary theory. Watcing a cat give birth to a gerbil would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. But shockingly enough we've never observed such a thing.

Now, Bithead often makes very good observations on other topics, and he is not stupid. But he is not familiar with evolutionary thoery, IMO. It gets very tiring to respond again and again and again to the same old strawman arguments. These things have all been shown to be lacking many times over. So much so, that there is not an index of Creationist claims. Take some time to read through the index, you'll note that all the arguments that Creationist/anti-evolutionists use are there. For example,

Macroevolution Has Never Been Observed.

Variation is limited to within kinds.

Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.

The childish hand rubbing glee you show when thrown a tidbit does, however, serve to diminish ones opinion of you.

From what I have seen many intelligent people, with a respect for science, have politely discussed Intelligent Design, which is not Creationism, here. But of course; they are chumps and one can't disrespect them enough.

* There is nothing in evolution that suggests life in whatever form, wasn't created. HAve you changed, since YOU were created?

* There is nothing in creationism that suggests man has not changed over time.

And now, back to more exciting action on "Roller Derby"

Considering that the Christians, Hebrews and Moslems all share the same creation myth, maybe you should be attacking all three religions.

I can see it hasn't yet occured to you that I'm not attacking religion, but I'm instead attacking bad science. In this case, the bad science is predicated on religious views.

My point I was trying to get at, through repitition, was that individuals whom believe in a creation myth should not threaten anyone of sound mind that can think for themselves.

And my point is that I'm not threatened by anybody's religious beliefs, but I do object to people trying to pass those religious beliefs off as science.

My 4 year old is getting ready to start T-ball soon and I am still trying to teach her two things: 1, taking turns & teamwork and 2, being a good sport, whether winning or losing. I expect my little girl to taunt and say â??I win, you loseâ??, because she doesnâ??t know better and I need to teach her that this is wrong. However, I would expect someone who is old enough to drink scotch to already know better.

It isn't about winning, it is about what is good science and what is psuedo-scientific crap. Nobody ever wins in science like in sports. Whatever theory is currently dominant/on top, could some day be knocked off due to new data. The same holds for evolutionary theory. New evidence could pop up tomorrow that renders the current theory invalid. A new theory that addresses the new evidence would be proposed and science would march on.

I am not excusing boorish behavior on the part of creationist/ID advocates. However, would it be appropriate for opponents of parole to celebrate whenever a parolee proves the worthlessness of parole (for example purposes only).

My 4 year old is getting ready to start T-ball soon and I am still trying to teach her two things: 1, taking turns & teamwork and 2, being a good sport, whether winning or losing. I expect my little girl to taunt and say "I win, you lose", because she doesn't know better and I need to teach her that this is wrong. However, I would expect someone who is old enough to drink scotch to already know better.