What exactly is ID?

Hi Drew, No, humour is when you deliberately make people laugh. No it's not. So what do you do? You do this... If you accept that the Bible is not a science book, then you are wasting your time trying to shoehorn relativity into its pages, where it does not belong. Yup. ID is simply an institutionalised lie, designed to attack science and replace it with religious fundamentalism. They are lying to you dude. Oh, great. Could you do me a favour? Next time you use your vast psychic powers to look inside my mind and uncover my innermost fears, could you poke around and see if you can get me to remember where I left my black hat? I can't find that thing anywhere.Or, alternatively, you don't have psychic powers, you actually have no idea what my fears are and you are talking patronising rubbish, in which case, forget the hat thing.If you really want to know what I am afraid of with regards to ID, I am worried that a great many well meaning people such as yourself are going to be deceived by an inane and vacuous lie. I am worried that this lie will cause you to waste hundreds of hours of your life defending dishonest nonsense. I am worried that a great many children will have their education vandalised by liars and dupes. That is what I fear. Coyote has already put you right on this one. Behe was forced to admit on oath that his definition of science was broad enough to allow astrology alongside ID.For my part, I would like to note that Christianity is supposed to be incompatible with lying. In my judgement, this makes the ID lobby very bad Christians as well as bad scientists.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I don't think am not explaining this well enough but would you really wish to understand my point of view?Creationism is based on someone's interpretation within a limited materialistic point of view of existence. I have a strong suspicion that says it explains Genesis as according to what someone believed the way the world ought to have been created. This person probably had no concept of quantum physics or time dialation. ...then I stand corrected. ....but that was my point! My recollection of the event wasn't totally correct but you have the idea now.

He wrote some books... Are you against books because they can be used to advance materialistic agendas?Why the special plea for Darwinism?

No, your point was that ID can't be Christian because it's compatible with astrology. Her point was that it isn't science because it's compatible with astrology.It's no damn good for anyone....I wonder if astrologers get mad about being lumped in with such a useless idea? At least they help people feel better about their daily lives.

I still fail to see how you interpret Creationism as being materialist. First, the word you are looking for is "materialist", not "materialistic", which means something else entirely.Second, I don't see how you can describe Creationists as materialists, when they typically believe in "the spirit of God" (as per Gen 1:2), the soul, Heaven, God's magical powers, the spiritual kingdom of Christ, etc. This is not materialism. I think perhaps you need to go and look the term up. I agree. They had no concept of modern science or its discoveries. That is why I say that attempting to interpret Genesis in light of such knowledge is foolish. So we are agreed that ID is poor theology and poor science. Great.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Detailed information about what Behe said about astrology during his testimony at the Dover trial can be found at: Specifically, this document beginning on page 38: The topic of astrology comes up while Behe is providing his own definition of theory: There's a lot more. Just trying to establish a factual basis for discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

And some of them don't. And technical terms shouldn't. What, for example, would be the use of the word "autosomal" if it had lots of different and conflicting meanings?The only remaining use it would have was if someone wanted to blur an issue. No, it's because he thought of it.You don't get to argue with Adolphe Sax on the proper meaning of the word "saxophone", and explain that really it ought to refer to a kind of cheesegrater. As, I suppose, can the discovery that infectious diseases are caused by germs rather than witches. You've not followed this at all.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes I would like to know what rule says science cannot investigate astrology. Why couldn't science lay the ground work for critically scrutinizing astrology? Is there a framework in science that could analyze the results of astrological findings?Even if astrology could be proven somewhat reliable, I don't think astrology would necessarily be the truth. Theoretically, another explanation could come along and explain the results better than astrology could.

Yep, excellent documentation.Now here's a factual basis for discussion. He asserts that ID is not creationism because ID is incompatible with Christianity. She asserts that in fact it is science that ID is not compatible with, as demonstrated by the loose redefinition process extending the concept to obsolete and unfalsifiable concepts. This opens the question as to intentional distortion of the facts. He responds by claiming that was what he was saying all along, which is clearly false. It is difficult to understand how this could just be a mistake or lapse of memory.. . .We had a similar controversy during the course of the trial, didn't we? Message 24You gave the guy the benefit of the doubt. Someone else pointed to the actual facts. You, being an honest scientist, adjusted your theory to fit the facts. You did not advance the claim that that was what you really meant all along.

Why in the world do you find this trait admirable? At best it's pathetic, at worst, dangerous.

Well that seems logical but I don't believe Thaxton should have exclusive ownership of that term. If he does then, who made that rule?I found the following quote on the net: The term "intelligent design" appears to have been coined in its contemporary scientific usage by the atheist cosmologist Dr. Fred Hoyle, who in 1982 argued that "if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design."Doctor please,... let's be reasonable. These matters can be settled in rational ways. I have read one scientific study on it to the best of my ability and have read the ID response to it. If I am wrong and you are right then you should be able articulate the step by step process in another thread. I know the best scientific explanation involves HGT (horizontal gene transfer).

Nothing. This isn't about science investigating astrology however. This is about astrology itself being science. Science did, and found out astrology is a load of bullcrap. Of course there is. However, again, you misunderstood. Science can investigate almost anything. Like the the claims for UFO's. That doesn't mean those claims are scientific though. Yes, that could very well be the case. Thus far nothing real has turned up though. However, does this make Astrology itself science? No. for the simple reason it doesn't follow the scientific method as it is currently defined. Science can investigate the claims made by astrology. AStrology itself however is not science. Unless you broaden the definition of science to include ID, then astrology suddenly does become science.Get it? Investigation, yes. Being, no!

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Begging the question. Astrology is psychology formulated using the terms of astronomy, it relies on the mythological associations of named heavenly bodies to stimulate archetypes in our alleged collective unconscious. Science has investigated it, and these are the documented results.It is not a science, because it is an art, an unfalsifiable art that works by means other than those it uses for misdirection. There is no supernatural connection between distant planets and human nativities, the head of the person delivering the baby has more gravitational and radiational impact on the newborn child than anything in the sky. The most reliable form of astrology is the tropical horoscope, which is categorically false in the sense that the actual signs have shifted by about 27 degrees since it was established due to the precession of the equinoxes. Nevertheless, it works like a charm, because it is the astrology most clients believe in, and beliefs are more important than facts in psychological manipulation.Furthermore, your claim that astrology is incompatible with Christianity is plain nonsense. Every fundamentalist I have ever met believes in numerous concepts from astrology, they they tend to refer to it falsely as astronomy. For example, they believe that the alignment of distant planets can have a significant effect on the earth, causing mass catastrophes; and that the tides affect our personal metabolism and moods.Gravity is the weakest of the fictional "forces", the only reason it even causes tides is because of the massive volume of liquid involved in the displacement process. Do you have access to a large swimming pool? Go measure the water mark at high and low tides. And that's thousands of gallons!Why do you not know this stuff? Why do people drag things like astrology, genetics, RNA error, Josephus and the Septuagint into arguments when they have no familiarity with the material and thus vulnerable to systematic attack? Are you guys even trying to win these arguments, or is this some kind of kamikaze mission?

Listen, the following was a cut and paste (from my post) in response to a debate of whether ID is Creationism or not. I will also point out (from the top of my head), I believe it was during the Dover trial that someone asked Michael Behe if intelligent design should investigate astrology. If someone thinks ID and Creationism are the same thing then, why would someone think Creationism should investigate astrology or ask if it should do so? Do I need to tell you that astrology and Christianity are incompatible?This was part of Coyote's response: Behe is a biochemist and I don't know if he specializes in philosophy of science. I don't know if he thought of ID from this perspective before.Ultimately Granny Magda's response was the following: I see your point but there was the other point, the not so obvious point that Creationism isn't ID. So how does it all contradict my view or prove it wrong?Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

I can agree with you for once Huntard. And that your post one reason why I don't think anyone can neatly categorize ID under something else.