Well, look just above it, this is not any better: “Archaeological expeditions, talented professors and rigorous classroom preparation prove the historical accuracy of the Biblical narratives.” Oh, and I thought that the Dembster didn’t take the Bible literally. YEC-sponsored “Ark” expeditions, anyone?
Ah, the Heinrich Schliemann school of archaeology...
Well, we can at least give them some credit here for being truthful about their real position.
You know, the Disco Inst. climbs all over the press that "misrepresents" "intelligent design" as a religious proposition.
They seem to be somewhat quiet about this.
Hello! Discovery Institute! Somebody is calling "intelligent design" a Biblical thing! Where's Casey Luskin to defend the honor of "intelligent design" against the barbarians opposing True Science?
Casey? Hello?
"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
- William Dembski
They may be fooling themselves, but they aren't fooling anybody else.
.
That is intersting. I had I thought that the whole point of repackaging creationism as ID was an attempt to conceal the religious roots to which creationism is so intimately tied in such a way as to be able to teach it in schools without invoking the Establishment Clause. (Sorry for the run-on)
I think I've said it before, but I can't help but think that somebody's tugging on the DI's purse-strings. (Of course, that's giving them the benefit of the doubt that the DI's just running rudderless after some of the wind in its sails of late.)
Hmmm...I thought that only liberals waffled?
A. It isn't waffling; it is nuanced ala John Kerry.
B. ID isn't creationism repackaged unless you consider Kenneth Miller a creationist.
C. Quote mining literally proves nothing except the incompetence of the poster.
D. Should Casey respond to all the statements pro and con that ID theory elicits he, literally, would not have time to do anything else. Common sense would lead even the dullest thinker to that inexorable conclusion.
E. We? We who?
f. Ah, the dubious though erudite opinion of the half-informed.
G. If religious opinions of scientists and philosophers count, Dawkins, Dennett et al have just as much going against them. Their conflation with science and religion is just as egregious.
Commenting by HaloScan
