tupelo_boy wrote:This would fit equally well and should be applied with the same clarity to the Creationist/Intelligent Design thread, debate.
Thanks for the post Scatter, indeed, a rare moment of clarity in the "Off Topic" section.
I feel I should mention to you that Scatter is even more of an I.D. advocate than I am.
As for clarity creationism and I.D. are two different concepts. Creationism in it's 'properly understood' sense is the concept that the Earth is 6000 years old (or thereabouts), Adam & Eve were the first human beings, ect. Advocates of this school of thought take the genesis creation account literally, and want to have it taught as science in public schools in competition with evolution.
Intelligent Design is a theory put forward by legitimate scientists, mainly working in the fields of bio-chemistry, molecular biology, that certain systems in living organisms display what is known as irreducible complexity. These scientists aren't necessarily anti-evolution per se, they just believe that these systems that exhibit irreducible complexity could not have arisen by Darwinian gradualism. This irreducible complexity is also highly specific, leading these researchers to conclude that these systems were the result of design by an intelligent 'agent.' I.D. advocates make no claims regarding the identity of the designing agent. I.D. advocates for the most part do not seek to have I.D. taught in public schools, they merely seek to have evolution taught in an honest pro & con manner (something that has not been the case here in the U.S.). They also seek to have evidence for design/irreducible complexity get a fair hearing from the biological science community, particularly from zoologists and evolutionary biologists.