Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

I certainly don't think it's a true conspiracy, per se.I think Creationists want their perspective to be taught to their kids in public schools in science class. This helps prevent any secular education from interfering with religious indoctrination, and keeps the parents from needing to have the evolution vs. creation debate at home.Intelligent Design is Creationism-lite. It's the exact same thing, just without specifically naming the Judeo-Christian God. It also has absolutely no scientific merit - it simply says "stuff is too complicated, so God did it." No mechanism, no description of how things came to be. Just a simple "I can't understand it by examining it for a few minutes, so I'll just say God did it."They think that, because it doesn't specifically identify itself with a particular religion, they can slip it in past the seperation of church and state. But it's still not science. It doesn't propose a mechanism. It isn't testable. It's even founded on a logical disconnect - no reason is ever given as to why complex structures need to be designed.This is why there is controversy - Creationists want their Bible-lite in the public science classroom. Scientists foam at the mouth and sputter with incredulity at the thought of allowing something that is blatantly NOT science to be taught in a science classroom.I don't think it's a conspiracy, though. There are some vocal proponents (like Bush), but I still think the major push comes from everyday Creationists who simply want their perspective taught in the classroom.If it wasn't the same as teaching kids something like:The giant flying spaghetti monster created the Earth in three hours last Thursday because the world is so complex only spaghetti can explain itthen I wouldn't have an issue. But only science belongs in a science classroom.

The "debate" is about the fact that ID is NOT science. It's theology.There is no evidence to suggest that anything was ever "designed," or guided by an intelligence. ID proponents simply point to "complexity" and say that this is evidence of design.ID describes no mechanism - it just says "Goddidit," or at least "somebodydidit."ID makes no falsifiable claims. All scientific hypothesis MUST by definition be falsifiable.Occam's Razor tells us specifically NOT to add extraneous entities to a theory. Since the universe is fully explainable without a grand designer, there is no reason to add one.If ID is NOT science, it has no place in a science classroom. A philosophy or theology class would be fine, but it has zero basis in science.

I'm not sure I follow. There IS a real debate between those who support ID and scientists. ID is NOT science, as I have shown. You're right that those opposed to evolution do so to further their own agenda, but this doesn't mean that the debate doesn't exist. But an intelligent designer, with no evidence to suggest one, is not science. Philisophically and theologically, you can mesh them into a single worldview. Many people here who believe in God AND evolution do exactly that. But ID is not science, despite its proponent's claims to the contrary. I would.In a science class, "belief" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Operating from belief with no evidence is contrary to the scientific method itself. Science classes should deal in observable facts and the theories that spring from them, not philosophy or theology. Those classes are down the hall, thank you.

The fact that ID fits both is part of the very reason it isn't science:It's not falsifiable. There is no evidence one can put forth to disprove the idea that a grand designer caused everything. All scientific theories must be falsifiable - otherwise it's just idle speculation.And please don't refer to Creationism as a "theory." A "theory" carries the weight of evidence and repeated attempts at falsification. Creationism is a religious belief, nothing more.

It's the same thing. The specifics (the ID claim that complexity proves a designer) are irrelevant. Neither ID or "theistic evolution" have anything to do with science. They simply add an extraneous entity where none is required, a violation of Occam's Razor.ID and theistic evolution are the same in that:1)neither proposes a mechanism - they simply tack on "Goddidit."
2)neither proposes a falsifiable prediction
3)there is no evidence for either one
4)they both add an additional, extraneous entity beyound what is necessary to describe evolutionBecuase of these things, they are not science. They are philosophical and theological perspectives, NOT science. As such, they should never be mentioned in the context of a science classroom - unless the teacher wishes to give an example of pseudoscience.

I never said they were mutually exclusive - only that they are not one and the same. The only place ID needs to be excluded is the science classroom - because ID is not science. Of course I am aware of that. I, too, believe in God as well as evolution. The personal philosophy and theology of individual scientists, however, in no way equates ID with science! I never said the two were incompatible in a philosophical sense. They are ONLY incompatible in the science classroom. Only science belongs there, and ID is not science. On this part I agree with you. ID, as pushed by Christian Fundamentalists, is Creationism Lite. It's a way of sneaking God and Creationism into the science classroom by disguising it with pseudoscience, false claims, and taking the specific reference to the Judeo-Christian God out. ....with the exception that God/ID is incompatible with science in terms of the science classroom and public education. Since ID is not science, it has no place in the public science classroom.

I think we are, in fact, in agreement. The only thing I have a problem with is Theistic Evolution or ID representing themselves as science. Both can be perfectly valid personal philosophies, and do not conflict in such a context. They simply cannot be taught or represented as science alone.In other words, trying to invade the science classroom, or what the Discovery Institute does.

You didn't read what I said. I don't care that Theistic evolution will not change science. I am fully aware that these theological viewpoints can be fully compatable with science. I am saying only that they are not science, and as such they do not belong in the classroom. Also, anyone who claims that either ID or Theistic evolution is science, even outside of the context of a science classroom, is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. There are thologocal and philosophical positions, and have zero basis in science. It's irrelevant that TE allows for the naturalistic explanations, and essentially doesn't change science. The fact is that it adds an extraneous entity (a deity) without any evidenciary reason to do so. It's faith and belief, not science.Like I said: I only have a problem with ID or TE misrepresenting themselves as science, especially in a science classroom. I don't have a problem with people believing in them. Hell, I AM a Theistic Evolutionist!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

How can theistic evolution, whose entire reason for seperation from plain evolution is that its adherants believe a deity started the process, possibly NOT discuss its belief in a deity?!Just teach plain evolution, don't mention God's existance or lack thereof, and leave the science classroom to pure science. TE is just as invalid as ID in the classroom becuase it requires the acknowledgement of a deity whose existance is as provable as that of magic fairies.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If a TE seperates his beliefs from the science and refers only to evolution itself as science without mentioning his faither...Than it's just plain evolution. Which IS science. I have no problem with that.But again, that would not be TE being taught in schools or representing itself as science.If TE presents itself as science, I have a problem. If ID presents itself as science, I have a problem. If a person who believes ID or TE teaches strict evolution, and does not add their personal beliefs into the picture, I have no problem.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.