27 Jan '08 01:12>
Originally posted by Conrau KThey should be interchangable. ID is merely poorly disguised creationism. It is not science, because once again it starts with forgone conclusions and then seeks to back those conclusions up with examples. Typically, once the examples are suitably explained by evolution IDists move on to another one. Also ID followers seem to have a poor grasp of the basic theory of evolution they claim to follow. The eye is still used by some as an example, when really it is one of those abandoned outposts now fully explained by evolution. To be quite honest, the eye should never have been used, and would never have been if IDists had any idea about evoultion.
I thought the issue was over Intelligent Design, not creationism. Most people who support ID do reject creationism.
There was a time when these two terms were not interchangeable.
ID works of artificial selection and small acts of creation. It clearly has far more in common with creationism then evolution. It is equally irrational and unnecessary. It is however an important cop out for christians as it allows them to pretend they follow evolution, while taking it as read that the existance of humans was a certainty before they existed, and not a chance, and prehaps improbable, result of the any number of factors that drive evolution in a particular direction. Evolution does not fit with being made in 'God's image', because it is non directional.