Talk:Cdesign proponents/@comment-3338975-20120805054728/@comment-3338975-20120805062421

Well, that was rather confusing, mostly because of this part:

"According to the cproponentsists, the world was created by some Bible "Panda"-author known as God Mr. We-Won't-Tell-His-Name, who is also de facto-founded the Conservaitism and likes people who send soldiers to the Middle East in order to destroy strengthen Islam."

The constant cross-outs and re-writes made it very difficult for me to understand what you were attributing to the movement, and what was your views on their views. The long divergent rant in the second section also made little sense, as it seems to conflate the "Flat Earth" movement (yes, it actually does exist) and also creationism and the theory of Intelligent Design. The use of the word "cdesignism" was very confusing, as I had a hard time working out what you were talking about.

I'm not going to defend the scientific accuracy of the Intelligent Design movement, as I don't really agree with it and find several of its key features to be flawed from a theophilosophical perspective as well as not in-line with the majority of the empircal evidence. However, it is different than 6-Day Creationism, which can't seriously contemplate the thought of millions of years which thus rules out the idea of evolution by natural selection a priori , whereas the Intelligent Design movement as a whole doesn't rule out the idea that natural selection has some part to play in the creation of new life forms because it has no particular beliefs concerning the age of the earth (and often cedes to the scientific consesus that the earth is millions of years old), but cedes the ground to vulgar anti-naturalism when it comes to the idea that natural selection defines all of life's features. True, 6-Day Creationists often blur this line by using the IDer's arguments against natural selection as a full explanation for life despite the inconsistency of the two theory's basic premises, and IDer's spend more time denouncing "natural selective" evolution then they do creationists, but there's no real theoretical consensus between them as the writing seems to say. These differences within the anti-naturalist camp may easily be overlooked from an outside vantage point, but believe me, I know from my own past close associations and contemplations of both theories before my subsequent rejection of them that these differences do exist, and really shouldn't be combined into one "cdeisgn" movement if you wish to avoid giving the fuel to the "scientific-social martydom" mentality which is behind these movements