Comments on: Intelligent design and its enemies http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-its-enemies/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: larrynormanfan http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-its-enemies/comment-page-1/#comment-169362 larrynormanfan Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:37:46 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-its-enemies/#comment-169362 I'm not sure a Google hit count is the best way to measure impact. Seven years ago (the time-frame Denyse uses), the ID movement's peer-reviewed journal, <i>Origins and Design</i>, was just shutting down, and the new journal, <i>PISCID</i>, was just getting started. Yet <i>PISCID</i> seems either shut down or dormant, and I don't think any ID journal has arisen since. I think that to have a real impact on the science, the ID movement has to sponsor more scientific research, including sustaining a journal over the long haul. I’m not sure a Google hit count is the best way to measure impact. Seven years ago (the time-frame Denyse uses), the ID movement’s peer-reviewed journal, Origins and Design, was just shutting down, and the new journal, PISCID, was just getting started. Yet PISCID seems either shut down or dormant, and I don’t think any ID journal has arisen since. I think that to have a real impact on the science, the ID movement has to sponsor more scientific research, including sustaining a journal over the long haul.

]]> By: Borne http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-its-enemies/comment-page-1/#comment-169345 Borne Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:05:15 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/intelligent-design-and-its-enemies/#comment-169345 What ID has going for it is that it is a common sense type of view point based on observation and logic. It is thus very easy to see as true without coercion. The dark side knows this and so perpetually attempt to cloud the public mind rather than being honest. This they do quite effectively at times through double talk, scientific sounding just-so stories, outright lies about biology and the fossil record etc. But anyone reflecting on Dawkins' explain-it-away invention, "<b>designoids</b>", or Crick's statement, "<b>Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.</b>", must see that such statements would never be made if the design were not so conspicuously obvious. It is a salient fact indeed that humans can discern between design and randomness intuitively. If it were not so we would never have needed to invent such words. What ID has going for it is that it is a common sense type of view point based on observation and logic.

It is thus very easy to see as true without coercion.

The dark side knows this and so perpetually attempt to cloud the public mind rather than being honest.

This they do quite effectively at times through double talk, scientific sounding just-so stories, outright lies about biology and the fossil record etc.

But anyone reflecting on Dawkins’ explain-it-away invention, “designoids“, or Crick’s statement, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“, must see that such statements would never be made if the design were not so conspicuously obvious.

It is a salient fact indeed that humans can discern between design and randomness intuitively. If it were not so we would never have needed to invent such words.

]]>