ID is a back door entry to Creationism, without incurring the wrath of anti-creationists. A design infers a designer, which is one and the same as a Creator; Goddidit.
ID seems to go this path without referring to the theology which introduced creationism, by its findings and assessments of criteria which aligns with a designer minus the Goddidit. They also avoid much of a distorted version of Genesis by Christianity, namely that the earth is 6000 years old - which Genesis does not say. In actual fact, Genesis is the first recording the universe and the earth are billions of years old, in describing a host of actions which preceded life!
A host of emerging scientists disagree with the Dawkins/Hawkings premises as in fact unscientific, a syndrome very similar to what occured with Darwin - namely a host of humans who did not see the Gospels as credible in portraying the emergence of the universe, but were threatened of saying so - saw Darwin as their savior. Today, the anti-creationsts still don't cnfront theologies like the Gospels and Quran - two theologies which claimed the earth was flat; instead they take their anxst out by scapegoating to the only theology which did not say the earth was flat!
Some scientists condone ID with the premise a complexity cannot be derived by a random; other atheist scientists countered with the term 'SELECTION' as their answer to a non-random, another bogus slight of hand response disguised as science. I would rather see as selectEE a more honest response. Dawkins and Hawkings do not work when the preamble is a finite universe - first declared in Genesis.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
