Casey Luskin, lawyer and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the DI has this to say about the El Tajon creationism class:
Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator.
Umm. Strange. The DI, whom Luskin represents, has
The Discovery Institute is one of the major proponents of intelligent design, the idea that a divine being orchestrated the evolutionary process.Let me repeat, ID is "the idea that a divine being orchestrated the evolutionary process" and "Creationism ... always postulates a supernatural or divine creator". A divine being … i.e. a deity … i.e. a god … i.e. a being of supernatural powers or attributes.
Casey, ID is creationism. Get over it.
Comments
Umm, the DI didn't say that ... the authors of the article did. The article was written at Law.com and taken from the Fulton County Daily Report, as it indicates at the top of the link you provided. The brief web search that I did of the authors indicates that they have no affiliation with the DI.
A better conclusion than that somebody "slipped up" or is "telling lies" is that the DI linked to a news article that they may not endorse 100%, don't you think?
Posted by: Macht | January 11, 2006 8:10 PM
Fair enough, but given the DI's propensity to jump on any misrepresentation of ID, I'm guessing that either (1) someone screwed up, or (2) this is what they are comfortable with.
Actually, it does not really make a difference. By attacking naturalistic explanations, they are admitting that super-naturalistic explanations are required (by definition). Supernatural powers imply a deity. Either way you cut it, they're screwed.
Posted by: John Lynch
| January 11, 2006 8:20 PM