tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post113362668510522811..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Kansas Prof. Apologizes for E-Mail, etcStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1133994228901345542005-12-08T06:23:00.000+08:002005-12-08T06:23:00.000+08:00Gary>Stephen,You have misquoted me!!I said that Ev...Gary<BR/><BR/>>Stephen,<BR/>You have misquoted me!!<BR/>I said that Evolutionists (not me) claim that ID is Creation Science in disguise.<BR/><BR/>I did not misquote you. You said, "I have come to the realization that the Evolutionists are right about one thing. ... Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise."<BR/><BR/>Not knowing you, and going only by your words, I took it that that is what you believe. If you actually believe that the evolutionists are wrong in their claim that "Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise" then your comment did not say it. <BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1133710281782573532005-12-04T23:31:00.000+08:002005-12-04T23:31:00.000+08:00Gary[...]>Even the concept of Intelligent Design, ...Gary<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>>Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment above, but I disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>"Creation Science" (as commonly understood) is based on the Bible. That is why it tries to present scientific evidence for an Earth only ~10,000 years old, and also that the fossil record was laid down by a worldwide Noah's Flood (not that the Bible requires either of those two interpretations).<BR/><BR/>You won't find *anything* like that in ID. ID is based *only* on the evidence for design in nature, not the Bible. Some IDists are not even theists (e.g. David Berlinski). Also some IDists accept universal common ancestry (e.g. Mike Behe and myself). There are *no* advocates for "Creation Science" (as commonly understood)who are not theists or who accept universal common ancestry.<BR/><BR/>To be sure, one can believe in both "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" but they are two different beliefs. Not all who believe in "Creation Science" also believe in "Intelligent Design", and not all who believe in "Intelligent Design" also believe in "Creation Science".<BR/><BR/>However, if after this you *still* maintain that "Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise", then we must agree to differ.<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com