Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

you know, in my IB biology (wait, they've got that in the mountains of virginia!?) we did discuss ID--as a false scientific theory.

kuresu writes:perhaps you should look at that curriculum. That isn't any philosophy. That is a anti-science curriculum. If wants to be taught as a philosophy, then it should be more focused on Paley, who did introduce it as a philosophy, and not a science. Also, why the negativity towards evolution and geology if it's a philosophy study? It should be focused on what, how, and why it's a philosophy, not what is "wrong" with evolution and geology. Mick and Rev. don't want this "science" class purporting to be a real philosophy class.

kuresu writes:it's cool you think that. it just came out that you were blaming Rev and Mick for disallowing any free thought in studying philosophy, when they were actually condeming the curriculum that was attempting to look "philosophy". I just wanted to make sure you saw what they were condeming. You do. better yet, you agree with them on that part.

PaulK writes:So, what you are saying is that you describe yourself as supporting a religious and political movement because you like the name. Intelligent Design with capital letters was a term invented to disguise the next creationist strategy after the failure of "Creation Science" in court. If you simply agree with "intelligent design" you should say that - don't use the capitals - and you should probably look for a term that better describes your position instead of borrowing one from people who you don't really support.

wikipedia writes:Origins of the term
Though unrelated to the current use of the term, the phrase "intelligent design" can be found in an 1847 issue of Scientific American, and in an 1850 book by Patrick Edward Dove.[20] The term is also used in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman:No physical hypothesis founded on any indisputable fact has yet explained the origin of the primordial protoplasm, and, above all, of its marvellous properties, which render evolution possible”in heredity and in adaptability, for these properties are the cause and not the effect of evolution. For the cause of this cause we have sought in vain among the physical forces which surround us, until we are at last compelled to rest upon an independent volition, a far-seeing intelligent design.[21]The term can be found again in Humanism, a 1903 book by one of the founders of classical pragmatism, F.C.S. Schiller: "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design." A derivative of the term appears in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967) in the article on the Telological argument for the existence of God : "Stated most succinctly, [the argument] runs: The world exhibits teleological order (design, adaptation). Therefore, it was produced by an intelligent designer." The term "intelligent design" was also used in the early 1980s by Sir Fred Hoyle as part of his promotion of panspermia.

AbE I think that the difference is that I beleive in intelligent design as opposed to supporting the "intelligent design movement". (Capitalized or not)

The problem with ID, buz, is that it is based entirely upon a lack of positive evidence. All of the proposed evidence for ID has already been falsified,

or is simply not falsifiable in the first place since it involves the actions of the supernatural.