Design and the intelligence hypothesis

Let's gather a few things from previous posts together.Note that above: Remember that the basic argument between the two sides if that creationism in any form does not belong in the science classroom. The reason that IDers shy away is that god is not an acceptable answer without evidence for this god.Once they admit that the designer is faith based then they admit that they have no other backing than personal faith. Most of us don't mind that as long as they stay out of the classroom.Once we reach that point we have finished with the topic as far as this thread is concerned. There is a big difference between "We don't know." and "godditit". One is what leads the scientific process on to new knowledge. The other has, for all of history, stopped the developement of new knowledge.If we don't know some answers that doesn't mean we don't know anything .It may well be that the quest to continue answering such questions will regress infinitely or that we will finally run up against a wall that is simple more than our minds can reach over. So far, so good. Let's give it a few more decades at least before we give up to quickly.If you even look at our current state of knowledge from the point of view of a century ago we see that we now answer questions which, if they could have been conceived of would have been classed as forever unknowable.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-25-2005 01:44 PM

sure, sure, completely correct. But in the context of the discussions we have here and in the wider world it is misleading to use the term creationist in such a fashion.How about we distinguish between Creationist (the specific type who not only believes God is the responsible creator for everything but also think that s/he is in a postition to tell God just how He/She did the job) and creationist (small c) who isn't so prideful to think they can order God to toe the line.