Sorry for your unpleasant experience but you’re right in thinking this isn’t a website that fosters intelligent design. However I’ve often heard well respected members and even mods express the view that being ignorant regarding science is no mark against your value as a person or a Christian. You say you’re not a YEC Christian or fundamentalist but then it is hard to understand why you object to Darwin’s theories or the modern field of evolutionary biology they spawned. Seemingly there would be no objection to following empirical evidence where it leads unless your theology weds you to a fairly fundamentalist, literal understanding of Genesis. I know from the time I’ve spent reading here that there are many committed Christian’s here whose theology finds no barrier to faith and science based on the evidence as opposed to refashioning science to support a too simplistically literal reading of the Bible. I don’t think being a Christian should require one’s children to forgo studies or careers in science if they have interests in that direction.
Hi, Cristero. Your sense may be correct insofar as you won’t find any (regulars) around here who support the Intelligent Design perspective in its presently popular form. This is a Christian forum, and so among the believers here at least, there will be no shortage of those (myself included) who do acknowledge God-given purpose and agency in creation; and just don’t typically see that as something with empirical handles that science could get any purchase on with its methodologies. While most regulars here will differ with the ID crowd pretty significantly, some do so “gently”, even perhaps remaining open-minded about whether anything might come of that, while others already see the writing on the wall in the failure of ID to produce any eplanatory-value research that could begin to rival the established science currently in place for some time now. It may also be worth noting that the term “Darwinian” has long been outdated, and while some may appropriate that label for rhetorical flare, it’s usually just to provoke people like yourself. Biological evolution has changed considerably since Darwin’s time, and I don’t think many go around any more pretending that biological science now could be described as “Darwinian” except as an acknowledgement that the core of his theory has stood up spectacularly. It’s in the proposed mechanisms that so many advances have been made since his time.
We don’t typically make entire threads just go away. They do that on their own. All you need to do is stop responding here and the thread will die after the last few would-be hecklers give up trying to provoke your attention. Just ignore them and don’t return, and this thread will eventually get buried. We can close it early too if any want to persist inappropriately.
Thanks. If you could delete my account that would be great. 
Why do you believe a echo chamber is best? Why choose feelings over facts when it comes to biology?
What about Marty?
Okay … Yeah. And he’s probably not the only exception. Exceptions that prove the rule. I think our opening poster has already gotten enough feel for the place, though.
Okay … Yeah. And he’s probably not the only exception. Exceptions that prove the rule. I think our opening poster has already gotten enough feel for the place, though.
Oddly enough, no it is not. Personally I feel many here throw out the baby with the bath water because ID is so intertwined with yec and oec literalists that have been using bad gap science for a long time. I think many here are far too dismissive of notions like fine-tuning which is strongly found in the constants of nature and the parameters of the earth-sun system in my mind.
I think some here object to ID on theological grounds which I don’t share.
Vinnie
I must admit that there is probably a bit of “groupthink” here towards Intelligent Design, but if you dig beneath the surface, you’ll probably find that some of us have views that are a bit more nuanced.
The problem is that the words “intelligent design” can mean different things depending on what you’re talking about. It can simply mean the idea that there’s more to the origin of biological diversity than evolution alone, or it can refer to the question of whether or not design in nature can be detected scientifically, or it can refer to specific organisations, movements and websites that promote the idea, such as the Discovery Institute or Evolution News.
For my own part, I have problems with both sides of the ID debate. On the one hand, I find that many ID proponents can be a bit dishonest at times, and they have far too much of a tendency to degenerate into cheap shots and insults rather than objectively and dispassionately examining the facts of the matter. On the other hand, I find that critiques of ID far too often miss the mark, either by attacking it for being “religion, not science” (which just reinforces the perception of many Christians that science is something “secular” that is not to be trusted) or by getting all tangled up with US politics with appeals to Kitzmiller v Dover or the First Amendment or whatever. The US Constitution may be of great value, but it is not the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what isn’t, and in fact to those of us on the other side of the pond, it is pretty much irrelevant.
All I ask of ID proponents is that they make sure that they’re reporting things (including their own positions) honestly and accurately, while all I ask of ID critics is that they focus their critiques of ID on what facts they aren’t getting straight.
I think the picture is a bit more nuanced than that. Different people have different reasons for rejecting evolution, and it isn’t always down to having a fundamentalist/literalist approach to Genesis.
For some people, it’s a matter of pride. It takes a certain amount of humility to view yourself as being related to the animals, and when you get especially far back and start thinking in terms of sharing a common ancestor with fish and snails and slugs and creepy crawlies, it gets pretty squick-y. Another factor is that there are different degrees to which people might reject evolution. Some might just think that it is incomplete rather than incorrect, so they’ll take a view that’s most accurately described as “theistic evolution + intelligent design” (Michael Behe is an example here). At the other end of the spectrum you have people who go down the progressive creationist route, viewing different species as having been created independently and being completely unrelated.
I think the OP is permanently gone from the forums. So, we’ll have @jammycakes’s post be the last one. If anyone wishes to continue any new topics based upon this thread, feel free to do so.