Seems there holes in the Catholic Churchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) sponsored and approved theory about the "Big Bang"

Link (http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html)

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
September 1st, 2006 The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.

A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.

"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.

"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."

Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.

If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.

These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal.

3 year old breaking news. :lmao:

3 year old breaking news. :lmao:

Where did it say it was breaking news? :shrug:

Seems there holes in the Catholic Churchs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre) sponsored and approved theory about the "Big Bang"
The Catholic church's theory? :confused:

I thought it had been peer reviewed by scientists..... Seems you're wrong again, sporto.

The Catholic church's theory? :confused:

I thought it had been peer reviewed by scientists..... Seems you're wrong again, sporto.

Oh thats right, you claim a Catholic Bishop, with the approval and urging of the Catholic Church, set his belief in Genesis aside to research an alternative to Genesis.

The Scientest (Hubble) that the Catholic Chuch relied upon to develop their answer to Genesis, refuted their interepretation of the Doppler Red Shift. Without this Red Shift, the Catholic Church's theory loses its main evidence, an expanding universe.

And unlike your Discovery Institute, Science is constantly trying to revalidate and reseearch the theories. They do not claim anything is definitevly answered. Because of this the theories and hypothesis' are constantly up for review and the possibility for refutation.

Can your Creationists say the same thing?

Oh thats right, you claim a Catholic Bishop, with the approval and urging of the Catholic Church, set his belief in Genesis aside to research an alternative to Genesis.

The Scientest (Hubble) that the Catholic Chuch relied upon to develop their answer to Genesis, refuted their interepretation of the Doppler Red Shift. Without this Red Shift, the Catholic Church's theory loses its main evidence, an expanding universe.Regardless of whether the Catholic Church liked it or not, it is the prevailing view of science, not the church. It was peer reviewed, and remains today the scientific view.

To refute that is just pointless.And unlike your Discovery Institute, Science is constantly trying to revalidate and reseearch the theories. They do not claim anything is definitevly answered. Because of this the theories and hypothesis' are constantly up for review and the possibility for refutation.

Can your Creationists say the same thing?Creationists, no. IDers, yes.

This is one of the huge number of things that makes the two incompatible.

Creationists, no. IDers, yes.

This is one of the huge number of things that makes the two incompatible.


:confused:


wut?

Creationists, no. IDers, yes.

This is one of the huge number of things that makes the two incompatible.

Ahh so if thats what you truly think, do you agree the Discovery Institute is not an Intelligent Design organization.

:confused:


wut?
The only difference between ID and the rest of science is that IDers suggest that the original source of everything was handled as a specific design as opposed to the rest of science which suggests that everything has happened in a random, pointless chain of unplanned events. How the original designer set things in motion is not presupposed by Intelligent Design believers, just that it was designed.

Creationists, on the other hand, believe in a specific intelligent designer under a specific set of instances in a specific manner based on a specific set of religions. This makes Creationism completely incompatible with ID.

Ahh so if thats what you truly think, do you agree the Discovery Institute is not an Intelligent Design organization.I guess that depends. I don't study and try to determine the intents of the founders, merely what ID says.

So, when I read the site to say that ID and creationism are not the same thing, I say that they are ID. When you get in the heads of some of the people involved, and establish a specific motive to them, you determine they are not.

It's perspective I guess. When I read what you have to say on the Big Bang, and it's origins, and what you leave out about the person that first suggested it, I have to question YOUR motives when you report on the motives of those involved with ID. You neglect to accept the letters written to the pope regarding the church's response to ID where it was specifically asked of the church to knock it off, else the actual scientific merits of the theory would be, well, distorted by people like you as to its origins. You neglect the bulk of the scientific communities studies that lend credence to the theory. So, it makes it harder to believe you when you determine motives for other individuals on other things.

The only difference between ID and the rest of science is that IDers suggest that the original source of everything was handled as a specific design as opposed to the rest of science which suggests that everything has happened in a random, pointless chain of unplanned events. How the original designer set things in motion is not presupposed by Intelligent Design believers, just that it was designed.

Creationists, on the other hand, believe in a specific intelligent designer under a specific set of instances in a specific manner based on a specific set of religions. This makes Creationism completely incompatible with ID.

No that is not what they believe. You have been given the definition of both Intelligent Design and Creationism many times.

Creationists also fall under the Intelligent Design belief

Intelligent Design'ers do not necessarily believe in Creation.

I thought this was about getting turned down by a fat chick.

No that is not what they believe. You have been given the definition of both Intelligent Design and Creationism many times.

Creationists also fall under the Intelligent Design belief

Intelligent Design'ers do not necessarily believe in Creation.That you misunderstand and/or intentionally distort what ID is does not change what ID is.

The car in the parking lot is a Ford. You can call it a Chevy all day long, but it's still a Ford, regardless of what you call it.

I guess that depends. I don't study and try to determine the intents of the founders, merely what ID says.

So, when I read the site to say that ID and creationism are not the same thing, I say that they are ID. When you get in the heads of some of the people involved, and establish a specific motive to them, you determine they are not.

It's perspective I guess. When I read what you have to say on the Big Bang, and it's origins, and what you leave out about the person that first suggested it, I have to question YOUR motives when you report on the motives of those involved with ID. You neglect to accept the letters written to the pope regarding the church's response to ID where it was specifically asked of the church to knock it off, else the actual scientific merits of the theory would be, well, distorted by people like you as to its origins. You neglect the bulk of the scientific communities studies that lend credence to the theory. So, it makes it harder to believe you when you determine motives for other individuals on other things.

So when the Organization, not the founders, not members, but the Organization itself has a released agenda that says it wants to replace Science with Christian Theistic practices and beliefs, you still think its not Creationism.

So you admit the Catholic Church approved the Big Bang (why else was the Pope asked to cut it out?). You deny the Lemaitre was a Practicing Catholic Bishop (which he was) when he postulated his Hypothesis for Genesis (which it was).

And you fail to understand that Science has moved on in the 80 years since the Catholic Church's theory was released. As such the Big Bang has not continued to be a universally accepted theory. (hell you posted in 2 threads about Scientests that dispute it).

Unlike your Discovery Institute, Science does accpet the theory could be wrong. And unlike your Discover Institute, Science does continue to research the source.

That you misunderstand and/or intentionally distort what ID is does not change what ID is.

The car in the parking lot is a Ford. You can call it a Chevy all day long, but it's still a Ford, regardless of what you call it.

Jesus H Christ

You post a definition from a Creationist site, i'll post from the Dictionary.

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
By the actual definition, the God of Genesis' is the desigining intelligence
Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.

So when the Organization, not the founders, not members, but the Organization itself has a released agenda that says it wants to replace Science with Christian Theistic practices and beliefs, you still think its not Creationism.The Discovery Institute is the only organization or group of people who suggest an intelligent designer? Nuck, you're off your rocker.
Intelligent design (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design)(ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an "argument from ignorance"; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).So you admit the Catholic Church approved the Big Bang (why else was the Pope asked to cut it out?).Of course.You deny the Lemaitre was a Practicing Catholic Bishop (which he was) when he postulated his Hypothesis for Genesis (which it was).I've neither denied that he was a priest working for a Catholic university, nor think that his studies at the university were to find a hypothesis for Genesis.

Nor did the bulk of scientists, save Einstein (who was later proven wrong), believe this.And you fail to understand that Science has moved on in the 80 years since the Catholic Church's theory was released. As such the Big Bang has not continued to be a universally accepted theory. (hell you posted in 2 threads about Scientests that dispute it). Yet, inconclusively. I don't need to only post from people who agree with me 100%.

It's called having an open mindUnlike your Discovery Institute, Science does accpet the theory could be wrong. And unlike your Discover Institute, Science does continue to research the source.Again, the Discovery Institute is neither mine, nor my church. ID does accept the concept that scientific concepts can be proven wrong.

Jesus H Christ

You post a definition from a Creationist site, i'll post from the Dictionary.

Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence
By the actual definition, the God of Genesis' is the desigining intelligence
Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism)

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

— cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective


You can believe in Intelligent Design and not be a Creationist. Because your belief, faith, religion doesnt follow Genesis.

If you are a Creationist you believe in Intelligent Design. Because you believe, per Genesis, God (Intelligent) created (Designed) everything.Nuck, you have to realize that you seem like a raving lunatic with your twisting here.

Creationists believe in a specific designer, in a specific manner, based on a specific religion created the universe. Intelligent Design merely suggests that it wasn't just "#### happens", as science purports, but that there are reasons to believe that there was a design to the universe and most anything in it. Intelligent Design, as a theory, specifically denies the constraints of any religion - including the concept of creationism - because it doesn't suggest a knowledge or furtherance of any single religious viewpoint. That would be counter to what ID is trying to suggest, and your insistence that ID suggests it merely proves your biased view and closed mind.

The Discovery Institute is the only organization or group of people who suggest an intelligent designer? Nuck, you're off your rocker.
Is that what i stated? noope just checked never stated the Discovery Instute was the only Intelligent Design organization.

Matter of fact, i'm pretty sure i stated the Disovery Institute was not an Intelligent Design organization.

But hey maybe its easier to lie about what other posters have said, instead of addressing your source.
Of course.
But you take issue with me pointing out that the Big Bang Theory is a Catholic Church Approved?
I've neither denied that he was a priest working for a Catholic university, nor think that his studies at the university were to find a hypothesis for Genesis.
No you just denied he was a Catholic Bishop (http://forums.somd.com/3889778-post21.html) at the time
Nor did the bulk of scientists, save Einstein (who was later proven wrong), believe this.
Some Scientests agreed others did not. Hubble, who Lemaitre based his findings on, did not agree.
What was true 80 years ago, is no longer true.
Yet, inconclusively. I don't need to only post from people who agree with me 100%.

It's called having an open mind

Again, the Discovery Institute is neither mine, nor my church. ID does accept the concept that scientific concepts can be proven wrong.
Oh Bullshiat, you used the Discovery Institute (and their child organizations) as your refutation to evolution numerous times. It wasnt until you were shown they are not interested in actual science, that you backed away from them.

We're proud of you, but dont try to rewrite your past.

Creationists, on the other hand, believe in a specific intelligent designer under a specific set of instances in a specific manner based on a specific set of religions. This makes Creationism completely incompatible with ID.



No, that doesn't make it incompatible with ID.

It makes creationism a subset of ID.



ID = "Food"
Genesis = "Roast Duck with Mango Salsa"

Is that what i stated? noope just checked never stated the Discovery Instute was the only Intelligent Design organization.

Matter of fact, i'm pretty sure i stated the Disovery Institute was not an Intelligent Design organization.

But hey maybe its easier to lie about what other posters have said, instead of addressing your source. Since they're not my only source, I'm not finding your point anywhere.But you take issue with me pointing out that the Big Bang Theory is a Catholic Church Approved?No, church's theory, or church sponsored, etc., are all wrong, but not church approved.No you just denied he was a Catholic Bishop (http://forums.somd.com/3889778-post21.html) at the timeRead that again. I said he wasn't working as a priest to come up with the theory. He was working as a college professor at a catholic university. He was working as a college professor. Not a priest. Not functioning in a church capacity, but in a college capacity. That's why his theory was peer reviewed by scientists, not other religious individuals.Some Scientests agreed others did not. Hubble, who Lemaitre based his findings on, did not agree.
What was true 80 years ago, is no longer true.The bulk agreed. The bulk continue to agree.

However, you're right that what was true 80 years ago is no longer true. The percentage that agree with the theory and the information gathered since then that supports the theory is much larger now than then.Oh Bullshiat, you used the Discovery Institute (and their child organizations) as your refutation to evolution numerous times. It wasnt until you were shown they are not interested in actual science, that you backed away from them.

We're proud of you, but dont try to rewrite your past.I used the ID portions of their website to demonstrate what ID is and is not.

The funny thing is, I don't even specifically refute evolution, I merely question it and the science behind it on a macro scale.

That makes you wrong on at least two parts of one point. Not even a record for you, but funny nonetheless.

That you misunderstand and/or intentionally distort what ID is does not change what ID is.


No, actually - that's what you're doing.


The car in the parking lot is a Ford. You can call it a Chevy all day long, but it's still a Ford, regardless of what you call it.

A better way of saying this:

The car in the parking lot is a Ford. You can call it A CAR all day long, but it's still a Ford.

Creationism IS a form of intelligent design. God/Yahweh being the "Intelligence", and first few chapters of Genesis being the "Design". ID doesn't limit itself to The God of Abraham, but still encompasses it.

No, that doesn't make it incompatible with ID.

It makes creationism a subset of ID.



ID = "Food"
Genesis = "Roast Duck with Mango Salsa"No, it means that they believe in an intelligent designer.

But, their intelligent designer is far too specific and unquestionable to fit ID.

It's like saying that Jews are a subset of Catholics because they believe in the same God. A particular dish is one of the things that make up food for most, but being able to put the words together similarly doesn't make one a subset of the other in terms of religion and science.

To use your food analogy, "Vegitarian" and "Eater of Roast Duck with Mango Salsa". Each eats food, but the way they define food to eat is incompatible..

No, actually - that's what you're doing.




A better way of saying this:

The car in the parking lot is a Ford. You can call it A CAR all day long, but it's still a Ford.

Creationism IS a form of intelligent design. God/Yahweh being the "Intelligence", and first few chapters of Genesis being the "Design". ID doesn't limit itself to The God of Abraham, but still encompasses it.So, you're saying that Intelligent Design, by definition, actually allows for the specificity of a specific God, in a specific manner, for a specific reason, without the ability to be wrong?

If you're suggesting that, you misunderstand (or intentionally twist) what ID is. It is NOT that.

That's why a Creationist may believe in an Intelligent Designer, but not in the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Just like an ancient Greek believed in a god, but is not a Christian just because they both accept a god. Their concepts of God are incompatible, just like Creationism is incompatible with ID.

No, it means that they believe in an intelligent designer.

Yeah.


So do Christians..




But, their intelligent designer is far too specific and unquestionable to fit ID.

ID is a generic term. Therefore the term "too specific" is not applicable.

"They" don't recognize a designer. Just that there IS one... be it God, Brahman, Pangu, Chaos, Eru Iluvatar or The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's like saying that Jews are a subset of Catholics because they believe in the same God.

Some Jews are. But you're starting to stretch things with this analogy. It's not like saying that at all.


To use your food analogy, "Vegitarian" and "Eater of Roast Duck with Mango Salsa". Each eats food, but the way they define food to eat is incompatible..


And here's where you jump the shark. The above is a 100% false analogy. So, I suspect you're being deliberatly obtuse, and I have no desire to bandy words with you if you're going to be ridiculous.




Unless you can tell me which you believe:

God is not an Intelligence.
God is not the Designer.

... then this conversation is over.

So, you're saying that Intelligent Design, by definition, actually allows for the specificity of a specific God, in a specific manner, for a specific reason, without the ability to be wrong?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that ID is a GENERIC TERM - meaning that specifics are irrelevant.

ID = FOOD


The specifics belong to the categories UNDER IT:

CREATION = PORK CHOPS


Pork chops ARE FOOD.


Get it?




If you're suggesting that, you misunderstand (or intentionally twist) what ID is. It is NOT that.



Whatever... I said what I meant to say. Accept it or reject it. I don't care.

ID is a generic term. Therefore the term "too specific" is not applicable.I think we've come to the source of your misunderstanding.

ID is not a generic term. It's a specific term for a field of science, with it's own set of rules, definitions, classifications, etc.

God is not an Intelligence.
God is not the Designer. In my religious view, God is both intelligent and a designer.

However, that is not supported by my scientific viewpoint. God cannot be proven falsifiable, tested specifically per the Bible, etc.

Whether AN intelligent desiger exists or not may be able to be performed, but whether it is the specific God in whom I believe can not be tested, proven, etc.

I think we've come to the source of your misunderstanding.


Yeah - ok.

My misunderstanding :rolleyes:


ID is not a generic term. It's a specific term for a field of science, with it's own set of rules, definitions, classifications, etc.

If you don't like the term generic then call it "nebulous". ID is a hierarchical ancestor category of Creationism which exists as a nonexclusive subset of it.

See also: Is-a - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-a)

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that ID is a GENERIC TERM - meaning that specifics are irrelevant.

ID = FOOD


The specifics belong to the categories UNDER IT:

CREATION = PORK CHOPS


Pork chops ARE FOOD.


Get it?I get what you're trying to say, but what you're trying to say is based on a false premise (that ID is somehow generic).

ID is a description of a field of science. Creationsim is a description of a part of religions. They may have a similarity in that each suggests the truth of an intelligence in the design of things, but that's where the similarity ends.

Nuck, you have to realize that you seem like a raving lunatic with your twisting here.

Creationists believe in a specific designer, in a specific manner, based on a specific religion created the universe. Intelligent Design merely suggests that it wasn't just "#### happens", as science purports, but that there are reasons to believe that there was a design to the universe and most anything in it. Intelligent Design, as a theory, specifically denies the constraints of any religion - including the concept of creationism - because it doesn't suggest a knowledge or furtherance of any single religious viewpoint. That would be counter to what ID is trying to suggest, and your insistence that ID suggests it merely proves your biased view and closed mind.

Per the actual definition, not from a secondary source with an agenda, Creationists believe the Abrahamic God created everything based on the accounts in Genesis. This is also Intelligent Design.

Per the actual definition, Intelligent Design holds that Something created everything. For followers of the Abrahamic God, that Something is the description in Genesis (but some posit he just kicked it off, and left nature to do the rest). Others, that dont follow the Abrahamic God, believe something else created, kicked off, started everything.

Per the actual definition, not from a secondary source with an agenda, Creationists believe the Abrahamic God created everything based on the accounts in Genesis. This is also Intelligent Design.Actually, that is NOT Intelligent Design.

Here's a definition of Intelligent Design you may accept:Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligent%20design)

Main Entry: intelligent design
Function: noun
Date: 1847
: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligenceAs you can see, there is no mention of what the designing intelligence is. Specifically, if you look into it deeper than Merriam-Webster, you'll find that the theory of Intelligent Design specifically precludes any particular religious claims.

But, that would require actual research with an open mind.Per the actual definition, Intelligent Design holds that Something created everything. For followers of the Abrahamic God, that Something is the description in Genesis (but some posit he just kicked it off, and left nature to do the rest). Others, that dont follow the Abrahamic God, believe something else created, kicked off, started everything.You're describing religion as a subset of a science.

So, given that, I guess you could say that some Creationists are also evolutionists - equating the two (because, after all, some Creationists believe that mankind was created as a lower level lifeform and simply evolved to our current state).

So, I guess, using your logic, Creationists are EVERYTHING, because some believe in any thing you bring up.

ID is a description of a field of science.

So, you have Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Meteorology and Intelligent Design?


ID is not a scientific discipline. I know that a lot of the generic IDers (those who study ID, without regard to the deity involved) try to apply the scientific method to their findings, (which, mostly sounds to me like: "If we can't explain it, attribute it to [An Unspecified Deity]"). But I would submit that ID is still a far cry away from what I would call part of Science proper.

Guess who the biggest proponents of the Intelligent Design Theory are.

Creationists...

Christian Creationists.



But that's neither here nor there. My point is that you are implying disperity where none exists. ID - even as you describe it - remains a superset of Creationism, or a wrapper category, or a parent discipline... whatever. It is not distinct from or exclusive of Genesis.

However, I will cede that maybe my Food:ID analogy is flawed.


So, how about we go with this analogy instead:

ID : Physics
:. Creationism : Relativity


Cool?


Just as Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be called anything but a subset of the Physics discipline, Creationism cannot be called anything but a subset of the Intelligent Design discipline.

Definition of Intelligence.
Definition of Design.
Quod Erat Demonstratum

But that's neither here nor there.Well, it's a good thing you took up all that time and space and then realized there was no point in what you were saying :lol:

My point is that you are implying disperity where none exists. ID - even as you describe it - remains a superset of Creationism, or a wrapper category, or a parent discipline... whatever. It is not distinct from or exclusive of Genesis.Other than the definition of the science specifically prohibits Creationism as a subset, I would agreeHowever, I will cede that maybe my Food:ID analogy is flawed.We can agree on this as wellSo, how about we go with this analogy instead:

ID : Physics
:. Creationism : Relativity


Cool?


Just as Einstein's theory of relativity cannot be called anything but a subset of the Physics discipline, Creationism cannot be called anything but a subset of the Intelligent Design discipline.If the source of Creationism were the knowledge or understanding of the theory of ID, and it came about as an offshoot thereof (much like relativity came from studying other scientific principles, applying them, and growing that area of knowledge), I would agree with you.

That's not the source of Creationism.

The source of ID comes as old as Plato, discussing the design of the world. Creationists may, I will cede as well, have pushed the idea, but it's much older than the Discovery Institute.