If you read William Dembski's introduction to Mere Creation, which I would the ab orignine description for ID, I think you will find it in agreement with all of AiG's statements.
Check out my Blog at vantilman.blogspot.com, a new post introducing Van Til for my fiends who have never heard of him is coming up.
"Our concern with the intelligent design approach probably devolves upon two main factors. First, it is ineffective, no more convincing to evolutionists than is young-earth creationism; second, it is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation." (emphasis added) -- Henry Morris, Institute for Creation Research
5 comments:
Is there a response somewhere from an ID person to any of this?
this is not a direct response, but he mentions Wielands article.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1329
(sorry, I don't know how to post links)
If you read William Dembski's introduction to Mere Creation, which I would the ab orignine description for ID, I think you will find it in agreement with all of AiG's statements.
Check out my Blog at
vantilman.blogspot.com,
a new post introducing Van Til for my fiends who have never heard of him is coming up.
That should read - 'my friends who have never heard of him'.
Not knowing who Van Til is does not necessarily mean you are a fiend. :)
"Our concern with the intelligent design approach probably devolves upon two main factors. First, it is ineffective, no more convincing to evolutionists than is young-earth creationism; second, it is not really a new approach, using basically the same evidence and arguments used for years by scientific creationists but made to appear more sophisticated with complex nomenclature and argumentation." (emphasis added) -- Henry Morris, Institute for Creation Research
Post a Comment