- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:46:41 +0000
You have been mislead if you think that a court case can define ID as creationism. There are creationists mascarading as ID enthusiasts but none of the people interviewed in the film were creationist. ID is quite different, no matter how many courts pronounce it creationism. Court get it wrong sometimes. Clarence Darrow didn't win his case. The creationists had a temporary victory. I do not support teaching creationism in the public school system during science class. I at first attribute ID to being a philosophy, but as a working hypothesis for understanding cell biology and organic evolution it apparently works just as well as old fashioned evolution.
1. A court case can very well define ID as creationism.
2. IDers are creationists. Have you not even read the Wedge document?
3. ID and creation are the same thing. Hell, even the Discovery Institute admits as such (see: Wedge document).
4. ID has no scientific hypotheses or working research about biology.