ID dirty for creationists?

Aha ! News at the horizon.

William Dembski wonders what’s up to Reasons to Believe. The response is :

« At Reasons To Believe, our team of scientists has developed a theory for creation that embraces the latest scientific advances. It is fully testable, falsifiable, and successfully predicts the current discoveries in origin of life research. » via

Seems that those professional quality believers believe that Intelligent Design is f*ucked up, after Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was a religious idea and prefer to take their own chances with what they call a fully testable and falsifiable theory of them. No name yet?

One could expect a publication in a peer reviewed journal for such good news. But on the other hand Dr Ross and Dr Rana have bills to pay; so, there are two books describing a model that catapults the evolution/creation controversy to an all new level-from science vs. religion to science vs. science I suppose that they re-written the definition of Science in the dictionary, but until they publish in a peer reviewed journals I’ll ignore this revolutionary model…

Read Full Post »

commenting/tagging

While the discussion with Fulcanelli is over, there are a lot of IDers out there talking non sense. So, this blog is open again for the simple reason that IDers and/or other cretionist don’t seem to like comments on their blogs.

William Dembski want productive comments on his blog. He don’t say if the should be productive for ID or not. But I think he like « amens » more then arguments. And he do purge comments and people that bothers/bore him. So, clearly the best solution is to avoid loosing time (mine and his) to comment on his site. But tagging should help spread stuff related to his posts. William Dembski

The « Intelligent Design the future » web site doesn’t accept comments and/or trackback. So, the same policy about tagging for Michael Behe
And incidentally Paul Nelson, the first one I responded to.

Necessarily the use of the tags Intelligent Design and creationism will follow them 😉

Read Full Post »

Paul Nelson on private vs public schools

This is a response to Paul Nelson’s question. As the Intelligent Design for the future blog-like site can’t afford comments of trackbacks, it will go thought Technorati tags.

I have attend a private school and have learn creationism as the main (and only) explanation of the world. That didn’t made of me a creationist ! I tried your thought experiment and my answer is that the truth shines anyway; you are right Paul, I’m a convinced darwinist and not a merely believing creationist despite the fact that I was in a private, catholic school. And by the same way I have a rather good knowledge of the Bible and of the reasons why I consider them as great books written by people trying to manage other people. I would like to see theology to be teached in schools worldwide, presenting the Bible, the Kuran, the Evangils and as much as possible holy books », comparatively.

Whatever the issue would be darwinism wouldn’t be particularly affected. The question was, I think so, and probably the Judge Jones considered it the same way, if that was legal, not if that would affect darwinists. And if it’s place is in science or comparative theology classes.

Technorati tags: Paul Nelson, Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, William Dembski.

Read Full Post »