re: #464 Charles

“Intelligent design” is creationism, and I refuse to play their game of making a false distinction between two branches of pseudo-science.

Charles, this is not actually true. It is true that ID has been used as a Trojan horse for creationists. It is true that many IDer’s are creationists. It is true that the main financial supporters for ID also support creationists. etc. etc. However, it must be pointed out that one of the main proponents of ID (Michael Behe) is in no way a creationist. He has been very clear on this (esp in his last book The Edge of Evolution, pages 70-73) when he acknowledges the evidence for universal common descent, and (most critically) states unequivocally that the evidence for the descent of man from the great apes could not be better.

ID is crappy stuff: there should be no debate on that, and there are abundant empirical facts to demonstrate that point. But a perfect equivalence of ID with creationism simply doesn’t hold up. Groups of ideas are fuzzy around the edges: what do you make of Brig Klyce, or for that matter Hoyle (the Astronomer)? Why force nuts into shoe boxes? Why not just make it plain that they are nuts?