Is ID a right wing conspiracy?

I think you are missing the important distinction. While TE allows for methodological naturalism (aka the modern scientific method), but denies ontological naturalism, ID rejects both methodological and ontological naturalism.That is laced throughout their literarture and indeed the term "methodological naturalism" to describe the nature of modern scientific method, was most likely coined by IDs founder Philip Johnson.TE allows for Occam's razor and other logical tools to be used by scientists to understand how the mechanics of the universe operate. ID rejects Occam's razor and other logical tools, arguing a new epistemology (well old actually) must be used to correctly understand the mechanics of the universe.In short, TE will not change how we do science, even if it caveats how much the models reflect the totality of the universe, while ID wants to change how we do science so that they can have science "prove" their creator exists and so place it in scientific models of the universe.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think we are talking past each other. I certainly agree the onotological principles of TE should not be taught within a science class, but that would be the same for an Atheist Evolutionist.Any ontological or metaphysical issues regarding the true nature of the universe ought to be left out of pure science classes, and within philosophy of science courses.That does not make TE not modern science however. TEists are correct that as long as they don't say there is a reason to believe based on evidence they are fine with having faith that there is something out there which put the machina in motion. Unsupported belief is not inconsistent with science. Calling it scientific knowledge is.That is where I think there is a distinction between TE and ID. IDers actually are in conflict with science because they wish to weaken evidentiary rules so that current unsupported belief gets reclassified as scientific knowledge. They are attempting to derail modern science, to revert back to older and weaker scientific methods, which are no longer considered sufficient.Thus while we both agree they should not be taught, I disagree with your assessment TE is not science. It certainly is as long as its belief in a deity is not discussed as a scientifically valid conclusion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As long as they separate their belief from knowledge then they may remain scientific. I'm sure you can understand this as there are many competing beliefs about how the universe began, without gods but other equally theoretical mechanisms. Occam's razor cuts them all.One might argue that Occam's cuts a diety, especially a specific diety, a little faster than the rest, but they are all theoretical and cut out. We have no evidence for anything that occured near or previous to what we currently consider the "big bang".Yes, their additional belief should not be taught in a science class, and on that we agree because it is speculative belief and nothing to do with scientific knowledge. However outside of the classroom they remain as scientific as an atheist who speculates on circularly repeating explosions within a multidimensional framework. That and deities not only have no evidence to support them (at this time) but we have no way of guessing what rules apply to them.Does my distinction make sense now?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)