I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it. I had no reason to believe otherwise. The truth is a lot more interesting.
What does he conclude? What I have been saying to the propogandists – it’s refreshing to see an intelligent appraoch to this.
- ID and Creationism Are NOT the same thing.
"Intelligent Design accepts an old earth and even accepts the fact that species probably evolved. They only question the “how.” Creationists have jumped on that bandwagon as a way to poke holes in Darwinism. The Creationists and the Intelligent Design folks have the same target (Darwin), but they don’t have the same argument. The average person who has a strong opinion on this topic doesn’t understand that distinction because the political agenda of the creationists makes things murky."
- There might be credible evidence for either position out there, but there are no credible spokepersons.
"Both sides misrepresent the others’ position (either intentionally or because they don’t know better or because of bias) and then attack the misrepresentation. Therefore, neither side is credible (to me)….
"The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible. Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence. The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible [by misrepresenting their opponents and not answering their opponents’ objections to their own theory]. "