tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5395187625636352496..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: From Lennox's God's Undertaker: Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Conceptual ConfusionsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26831923994627521132016-03-26T16:44:41.458-07:002016-03-26T16:44:41.458-07:00The fact that a certain type of creationist has co...The fact that a certain type of creationist has co-opted to word "creationist" does not mean that they own the word. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82095212239722266032016-03-25T21:53:52.632-07:002016-03-25T21:53:52.632-07:00This post is like a funhouse mirror that takes a s...This post is like a funhouse mirror that takes a set of facts and distorts them.<br /><br />If at some point in the past (when exactly?) the term Creationism had a different meaning then the only people responsible for the coopting the term are the Creationists themselves. Creation Science, Scientific Creationism, Creation Science Museum, Creation Science Institute, etc. are the titles that they picked for themselves.<br /><br />Also, the term Intelligent Design may have been used to simply refer to theistic creation but the term was definitely 'borrowed' by the creationists to try and sneak God into the classroom.<br /><br />Science has already answered the first question about the 'recognition of design': evolution by means of natural selection produces adaptations that give the appearance of design but, in reality, there is no design before the fact. <br /><br />As the post points out, the identification of the designer (in fact, the very concept of a designer) is a religious idea and should not be forced into a science classroom. <br />jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.com