Essay talk:ID Disproved in 1 Sentence

Old news. Next! Bondurant 14:38, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Most 'refutations' involve special pleading, along the lines of "God is ETERNAL!". But yeah, I kinda think you nailed it. --Gulik 14:51, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Rebuttal
"... which would require that the very first sentient being was created by another sentient being."

This is a mis-characterization of Intelligent Design. While creationism includes the concept of God, ID seeks to only identify whether something came about by non-intelligent natural forces, or by an intelligent designer. ID explicitly avoids any analysis of the designer.

Creationism is justly deemed unfit for teaching in government schools because it acknowledges that the creator is God. But there's a piece of creationism that is totally independent of religion and just examines the facts of the artifact (in this case, the DNA). That's what ID is.

KenJackson (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "ID explicitly avoids any analysis of the designer." All you're doing there is saying "We don't attempt to answer the question, therefore the question is invalid" which is clearly nonsense. The rest of your post I don't understand, perhaps you could clarify? Christopher (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)