Over at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, there’s discussion of the theism-in-science issue. Among the questions, one popped up that lots of intelligent design creationism cheerleaders just don’t get.
August 13, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Ed, the unstated assumption I see you making is that ID is religion. Please demonstrate that more thoroughly to me; from what I’ve read about both ID and creationism, there appears a distinction.
And I replied there:
The principle is simple enough: two things with the same content are the same thing, no matter if their labels differ. A person using an alias is not another person. And intelligent design creationism is a proper subset of the argumentation used by previous forms of creationism. The things left out of the IDC subset are simply those calculated to confuse the legal system into falsely inferring that there is some difference from the creationism that went before. It is what the SCOTUS in 1987 perceptively called a sham. The 2005 Kitzmiller decision correctly cited the 1987 decision on exactly that issue.
Would “Hannah J.” be Hannah Maxson, Casey Luskin Award winner and IDC cheerleader?