Re: West Virginia Governor signed the vague creationist education bill

On Mon, 20 May 2024 12:43:11 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:12:01 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Mark Isaak wrote:

On 4/21/24 2:17 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

RonO wrote:

[...]
Do you deny that the West Virginia creationists are Biblical
creationists?  To the dishonest West Virginia creationist rubes,
there isn't enough of a difference between ID and Biblical
creationism to worry about.  If you do not understand that, you are
not competent enough to discuss the issue.

  >
This is so typical of the disinformation, misrepresentation and
deliberate lies regarding intelligent design which has been widely
published by antagonist from the beginning. This dishonesty, deceit ad
treachery was used at the Dover Trials even deceiving the judge. So
cock-sure are these antagonist that they go to the extent to create
false information which the attribute to advocates of intelligent
design. The are unrepentant liars and deliberate  deceivers, with no
conscience and no sense of moral right and wrong. And you sir are a
gdamn master of it all!

>
The Dean doth protest too much, methinks.
>
When the intelligent design proponents in the Dover trial as much as
say, "Look here! We're creationists", what do you expect the judge to
conclude?  And why would you conclude otherwise?
>

There is a difference. Creation is based upon the grounds that the
universe was created 6000 years ago in six (6) twenty four days by the
God of the Bible. Then God finally created man on the last day of the
6/th day period by taking a rib from Adam to create Eve. Intelligent
Design subscribes to none of this. Intelligent Design by contrast
observes highly complex entities in nature and sees this purposeful
design. The objective is to find supporting evidence of design. This is
about the limit of Intelligent Design. ID points to scientific evidence
which is claimed to indicate intentional design,
However, ID does not observe any evidence in nature which identifies the
designer. The people who
think the designer is God bases their belief strictly on faith not
evidence.

 
 
I know you know Creationism has many versions.  The one you describe
above is just one interpretation among many based on the Bible, and
there are many others based on other ancient texts and oral
traditions.
 
I know you know ID assumes as a matter of faith that complex design is
evidence of a purposeful designer.  That's what qualifies ID as
Creationism.
>

The difference is ID does not accept the Genesis account; creationism by
 contrast is based on Genesis account of a 6 day creation 6000 years
ago and the creation of Adam and Eve. ID interprets evidence discovered
by mainstream scientist as supportive evidence for design.

Once again, the difference would support your argument if and only if
Genesis was the *only* religious text that mentioned Creationism.

Once again, what you describe is but *one* interpretation of Genesis
among many.  It's not even the most accepted version. 

I know you know this.  Why do you even bother to argue it?

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge