Establishing Intelligent Design(ID) and Creationist groups

[loco]

Contrary to what many atheists have said, Creationists and ID advocates are not the same group and don't always agree on everything.
 
ID advocates generally want ID to be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.  The Discovery Institute is probably the leading organization advocating ID.

Harun Yahya, the leading Muslim advocate of creationism, has said that ID is a tool of Satan.
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php

Answers in Genesis(AiG), the leading Christian organization advocating Creationism, does not say that ID is a tool of Satan, but look at what the organization has to say about teaching creation or ID in public schools:

"Answers in Genesis has consistently stated that it would be counterproductive for public schools to force science instructors to teach creation or ID. Since most science teachers are evolutionists, they would teach creation or ID poorly—and the effort to introduce counters to evolution would generally backfire." - Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review

You may disagree with the reason why AiG does not support ID being taught in public schools, but at least you can agree with them that ID should not be be taught in public schools.

[wavelength]

Contrary to what many atheists have said, Creationists and ID advocates are not the same group and don't always agree on everything.
 
ID advocates generally want ID to be taught in public schools as an alternative to evolution.  The Discovery Institute is probably the leading organization advocating ID.

Harun Yahya, the leading Muslim advocate of creationism, has said that ID is a tool of Satan.
http://www.harunyahya.com/new_releases/news/intelligent_design.php

Answers in Genesis, the leading Christian organization advocating Creationism, does not say that ID is a tool of Satan, but look at what the organization has to say about teaching creation or ID in public schools:

"Answers in Genesis(AiG) has consistently stated that it would be counterproductive for public schools to force science instructors to teach creation or ID. Since most science teachers are evolutionists, they would teach creation or ID poorly—and the effort to introduce counters to evolution would generally backfire." - Mark Looy, CCO, AiG–U.S.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review

You may disagree with the reason why AiG does not support ID being taught in public schools, but at least you can agree with them that ID should not be be taught in public schools.

It's easy:

- science in science classes,
- religion in religion classes,
- no pseudo science (ID, Creationism),
- no pseudo philosophy / theology (scientific positivism).

[Deicide]

It's easy:

- science in science classes,
- religion in religion classes,
- no pseudo science (ID, Creationism),
- no pseudo philosophy / theology (scientific positivism).

Full of shit as always spectre.

[wavelength]

Full of shit as always spectre.

[Deicide]

 

[Eisenherz]

It's easy:

- science in science classes,
- religion in religion classes,
- no pseudo science (ID, Creationism),
- no pseudo philosophy / theology (scientific positivism).

I concur.

Macro evolution is not science, its not testable, its not observable (takes "MILLIONS OF YEARS"), its based on allot of assumptions (observations based on beliefs) etc..
What I'm trying to say is Macro evolution is not true science, it doesnt belong in a science class.

[liberalismo]

I concur.

Macro evolution is not science, its not testable, its not observable (takes "MILLIONS OF YEARS"), its based on allot of assumptions (observations based on beliefs) etc..
What I'm trying to say is Macro evolution is not true science, it doesnt belong in a science class.

Saying that something that takes millions of years is not testable and can't be indirectly observed and is thus not science is like saying that Crime Scene Investigations and Forensic Science isn't really a science since they didn't directly observe the crime happen but rather work on evidence left behind.

[Necrosis]

I concur.

Macro evolution is not science, its not testable, its not observable (takes "MILLIONS OF YEARS"), its based on allot of assumptions (observations based on beliefs) etc..
What I'm trying to say is Macro evolution is not true science, it doesnt belong in a science class.

your wrong and lying, macroevolution has been observed and can happen quite aburptly if particular conditions merit it, in a manner such as punctuated equilibrium.

There are literally millions of papers on evolution in the literature not one disagreeing with it.

Again macroevolution or speciation has been observed.

[Naked4Jesus]

I concur.

Macro evolution is not science, its not testable, its not observable (takes "MILLIONS OF YEARS"), its based on allot of assumptions (observations based on beliefs) etc..
What I'm trying to say is Macro evolution is not true science, it doesnt belong in a science class.

Macro evolution not floating your boat?  Great, now offer a scientifically sound "competing" theory.