Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID “a branch of creationism” – Adam Rutherford from Nature

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Adam Rutherford from Nature shows he is blinded even to an understanding of the difference between ID  and creationism. In his teacher’s TV rant he calls for the re-education of the 18% of UK science teachers not convinced that Darwinism has, in his words, “withstood all attacks”.

Commenting on the same survey, UK Daily Telegraph defines ID as “the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving”

In their failure to even grasp the basic definition of ID, these people are, the words of Richard Dawkins, “either stupid, ignorant or dare I say it, evil.”

Teachers.tv video

Comments
Well I don't think all 4 of those are necessarily exclusive But in the case of Adam Rutherford equating ID to Creationism, it's a pathetic strawman. By his definition of ID, any proof of evolution (i.e. change over time, common descent...not necessarily Darwinian processes proving everything wrong) proves ID to be wrong Saying that Darwinian evolution has "withstood all attacks", or like he was quoted as saying in the next post on this blog, "The theory of evolution is supported by so many facts that as far as science goes, it’s as irrefutable as the theory of gravity" is mind-boggling. The fact that people like him hold high-ranking positions within the science community with their visciously dogmatic beliefs is scary, and anything but scientific. FtK's post of Romans 1:18-23 is all too fittinguoflcard
November 7, 2008
November
11
Nov
7
07
2008
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
I would be interested in seeing a side by side comparison of Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, and Atheism.William Wallace
November 7, 2008
November
11
Nov
7
07
2008
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply