Science Points to an Immaterial Mind
mindmatters.ai
mindmatters.ai
"intelligent design" == "creationism" is another proposition worthy of careful thought.
No, but that's an argument from authority, so maybe if I run across their arguments I'll evaluate them very skeptically, but I'm not going to go chasing down intelligent design arguments. I've looked at too many alreadyl
> "intelligent design" == "creationism" is another proposition worthy of careful thought.
Yes, and after considering it carefully, I found that equivalence to be true. I also found Discovery Institute arguments to be almost entirely deceptive and in bad faith, but you may believe otherwise.
Additionally, for the Christians who believe in intelligent design, most of them also believe in evolution and an old earth.
So, it doesn't seem like the majority of intelligent design advocates are themselves creationists.
My perception is most intelligent design advocates are convinced that stochastic processes cannot generate highly complex structures with very precisely specified functionality. Thus, they believe the source of this functionality must lie outside of traditional evolutionary explanations.
It does seem like the majority of intelligent design advocates are creationists. My assertion is just as powerful as your assertion: both are fact free.
They only disagree with whether stochastic processes can generate highly complex, highly specified functionality. They believe this because they believe the evidence is very strongly in favor of their position. They are not advocating their position because of a religious agenda.
In fact, at least for some like Sanford, it is the other way around. He is one of the few 6 day creationist ID advocates, but he became a creationist from being an atheist after seeing the evidence for ID.