Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.

I think there is at the heart of your thread a deep misunderstanding about Intelligent Design. You seem to be ascribing Creationist traits to ID which is odd. About the only thing they agree on is that evolution is false. ID makes no attempt to unmask who or what the Designer is, whereas, creationists attempt to tie the Bible into its science. If anything, they model after Ptolemy's beliefs. They aren't satisfied with "Goddidit" any more than you would. It is unnecessary as far as showing that natural phenomena will produce more natural phenomena. But if you keep reducing life's physical components by a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, at some point, you will be left with nothing.Aside from which, ID is simply inferential. If anything, it is a philosophical belief intertwined with the natural law and order. There is nothing to distinguish ID from any other philosophy of science aside from the fact that one group believes everything comes from nothing, and the other seeks to find patterns stemming from a higher cognizance. We should remember that such things as Intelligent Design, evolution, Big Bang theory, string theory, etc aren't branches of science. They employ branches of science in order to corroborate or incorporate their philosophical view from the whole of science. Religion is no place in the science classroom, just as science has no place in the religious classroom. Invoking the Biblical God is only a theological/philosophical view. And saying that we cannot understand something doesn't mean we have to reduce all of life to meaninglessness. Its okay to say, "I don't know." Its also okay to say, "This is what I believe, based on this and that." But that's not what ID does. It says, "Whoa, look at all this patterning, look at this order, look at this configuration. This clearly appears to be intended, and thus, designed." That's an inference. And if somebody wants to say, "No, no, no, that is mere happenstance." Either option is inferential. Really, why such a fuss over our own views unless there really was some truth to it? Then what is your objection to ID? The thrust of the argument seeks to marry science and philosophy. Its a numbers game, Modulous. Its a game of odds. ID claims that there is no way you can get A from B, without first having C at your disposal. The competing theory posits that C is all you need to know, and that A an B are merely superfluous elements to add in, as its inconsequential to why C is what it is.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

The argument from design has been a theological argument for centuries/millenia. Classically the same arguments that are used today to conclude 'ID' were used to conclude 'God' in the past. The only difference is that the name of the protagonist of the story has become anonymized.As you may or may not know, of Pandas and People was originally about a 'creator' and 'creationism'. Before publishing they basically did a global search/replace with the appropriate terms for 'designer' and 'intelligent design'. The two are self-evidently synonymous, one is trying to mask its religious roots. All they did was go from the specific to the general. No, science doesn't believe everything comes from nothing. Science has not yet been able to provide us where everything came from and scientists continue to use the rigorous method to continue to search for what answers they can find. Not quite true. Intelligent design certainly cherry picks elements of science that it feels it agrees with and disregards those that disagree with it to corroborate their philosophical views. However, the others fundamentally differ in that they can be falsified by some evidence. The others are scientific, Intelligent Design is pseudoscientific. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. And nobody is saying that it is not Ok to believe x or y. And nobody is reducing all of life to meaninglessness. Those beliefs however should not be considered scientific, and many beliefs act as barriers to discovery - which we should be careful about. I'm aware of what the argument from design says. However that is not science. Making an inference of that nature is not scientific. It is simply saying 'I don't know how order/confirguration managed to get here. Since it appears intentional, it must be designed'. You can call that inference or reason or what have you. It isn't science, though, which is a special type of inference/reasoning.You cannot make an inference from a base of one. We only have one example of life. We do not know if it was designed by an intelligent agent or evolved without an intelligent agent. We cannot infer that since one example of life is a mystery, therefore life is designed. That is not science. Nor can we compare life with designed objects because designed objects generally don't self-replicate. Thus ID
is as an evidence-free inference with biology as it was with the solar system orbits. Actually, the thrust of the argument acts as a wedge. You may have noticed that the bulk of ID argumentation is not the modern ID movement. That only took up a small amount of time in my OP. I was talking about the very human trend of reaching the frontier of understanding and, instead of braving on, stopping and saying 'this is far too amazing - it can't be explainable in natural terms, it was a great designer.'.Remember that Newton got to this point, made the same argument that modern ID makes essentially. There is no way this could have come about by natural means because of reason x, therefore Design. A century or two later and somebody comes along and shows that his reasoning was completely wrong.Time and again, humans have fallen into the ID trap when the going got tough, and we should teach our prospective new scientists to steer as clear as they can from ID in their professional career, even if they choose to accept the philosophy in their personal career. Well, not quite. ID says that phenomenon X is unanswerable by science. Since it is an unsolvable problem, the only answer that makes sense is that some kind of intelligent agent is somewhat or entirely responsible for phenomenon x.Historically we find that phenomenon x gets solved not by deducing a designer but continual investigation. Maybe an x will come that will never be solvable, but science cannot let that stop it. It has to continuously delve and and falsify and discover.ID is happy to stop and say, 'no way - it's too hard - I'm happy with the God hypothesis'.

It should be stated that any divide between ID and Creationism is largely PR. The original draft of the "ID Textbook" Of Pandas and People was a creationist textbook - even the definition of "creationism" in the original version was used as the definition of "intelligent design" in the printed edition.ID is quite happy to include creationists in its ranks. Even Young Earthers like Paul Nelson. Most of the major figures in ID seem to be Old Earth Creationists. Creationism is certainly part of ID - the largest part.If ID were science it would be happy to try to make inferences about the designer. Yet if you try to ask an ID supporter about that they will most likely refuse on the grounds that such would be theology. If ID doesn't say that the Designer is God, if ID really accepted the possibility that the Designer might be an extraterrestrial then that answer would be nonsensical. If ID really says that the Designer is God then it makes perfect sense.ID's silence of the concept of the designer is a political strategy. They don't want to admit that the movment in general is convinced that the Designer is God. And they also know that if they admit that the question is open to investigation that the conclusions reached will not be the one they favour.But in doing so they shoot down any hope of offering a scientific alternative to evolution. That would have to be based on a notion of the Designer, and offer hypotheses about what the Designer would do. The Designer's capabilities and intention would be central to any theory they could come up with. Instead they want science to stop with the conclusion of design.Mainstream ID really is creationism. They just try to hide it behind PR spin and strategic silences.

Indeed, it is an old argument that far exceeds in time and in bulk, that which was posited by William Paley or Aquinas. And, yes, it is an argument in support of God, however, there is no mistaking that you cannot "prove" the existence of God with Newtonian precision. It just doesn't work that way. There will always be that element of faith, however informed it might be. But as I alluded to, the Great Protagonist need not be identified in order to recognize intent.There is a feeling of dread within the secular science community. But their dread is unwarranted because here is nothing threatening science here. Nothing at all. Especially when we consider that most of science has nothing to do with whether or not a Designer exists. Whether you or I believe that evolution was true or not doesn't, in the least bit, affect our ability to to practice medicine. Our belief in God or not won't determine whether the earth's eliptical orbit will stay in balance. Belief in God or not will not determine the amount of atoms in the universe.Therefore, its clear that this aversion towards ID is strictly philosophical. Atheists have grown accustomed to total domination of the field of science for the last 100, give or take, years. This aversion bespeaks of something far more insidious at work in their minds. Look, people don't need to apologize for their personal beliefs. So whether or not the vast preponderance of ID'ists ascribe to specific religious beliefs is inconsequential. There is this growing sentiment that "anything" related to God is immediately ruled out of bounds. The sentiment is that you can't God outside of the four walls of a church. That's hokum and that's suppression. I don't know if current British law is still modeled after the Magna Carta, but the Constitution of the United States of America is explicit in its approach. Religion will not be advocated in public institutions, nor will its religious freedoms be hindered by the state.There is nothing wrong with mentioning a Creator or a Designer. This belief that its really some conspiracy to teach about Jesus is garbage. If they want to profess the Name of Jesus, they will do so on their own time. At the same time, if there really is a Designer, then we really can't get around speaking about it at some point. What should not be taught in schools, is religious beliefs. ID is NOT religious. It is removed from religiosity. If you reduce the secular argument about science, that's exactly what you must believe, simply by default. "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer too. And I doubt that we ever will. That's a philosophical belief. There are many competing theories over the First Cause, but we will likely never know the answer in this realm. Such as? What exactly makes it pseudoscientific? This word is thrown around so flippantly, and yet, it seldom seems to be followed up by example. Explain to me this subtle distinction? Because as far as I can tell, its a philosophical belief stemming from scientific arguments. Holding theistic or atheistic beliefs bear no reflection to molecular biology at the base level, right? I mean, it really doesn't mean anything for face value as far as conducting a scientific method, right? So, what exactly is the problem? You are trying to monopolize secular thinking with science. While I would wholeheartedly agree that science deals with the physical universe, there still is left this lingering question of intent or unintent. All that ID does is look at natural phenomena and attempt to ascertain whether or not it was the result of design or happenstance. The science is the same. There is nothing different about it. We can't? Why not? Life either exists by deliberation or it didn't. And from its inception, whatever happens after the First Cause was guided along or its floating aimlessly. Now, looking at the science behind it, which best supports Ockamm's Razor? That's the inference. We can't make an inference from that? That's true, hence, why its inferred. It doesn't speak about the mysteries, it speaks about the things that we already know about. Anything beyond that is just theorizing, which, consequently, no one seems to have a problem with so long as it entails Big Bang, String theory, evolution, etc. Why do you secularists get to monopolize on the inference of unknown variables and theists don't? Seriously, who says that?! Who says we should raise our arms in incredulity and say, "well, I can't figure it out... God did it, so don't even bother to think about it any longer." Who says that? Wouldn't they be out of a job if they left science to such brevity? That's an absurd claim espoused only by its detractors-- and unfairly, at that. If this is what you have reduced the ID movement to, then this is what the secular argument is tantamount to: There is no God. Rule out anything that might be inferred to be intentional because that couldn't possibly be the answer. No matter how much something appears to be designed, you must come up with clever reasons to insist on its coming about by fortuitous occurences no matter the odds. So basically you are applauding the maxim that people shouldn't follow the evidence where it leads, but rather, rule out anything even remotely akin to supernaturalism as a priori? That, sir, isn't science. That's just pure bias. Insoluble problems may only appear as such. Design seems axiomatic to me, but, nevertheless, I understand your position. Of course. Who would expect anything less. All that ID is saying is that something of Cognizance is behind all of this intricacy. That's it. It doesn't emasculate science. It doesn't just throw its arms in the air and give up. The methodology is one and the same. We investigate natural phenomenon in the same way as the counterpart would. The conclusion is the only real difference. No, it isn't. That is beyond an unfair mischaracterization. ID'ists are tired of being slandered and mischaracterized by a population completely under the radar of what's going on and those fanatically imbued by strict naturalism.I thought we lived in the Democratic world were tolerance of others is supposed to be sought in all cases and that suppression is viewed negatively.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

While I agree Newton may have reached the wall on explaining why/how, have we considered that he was simply trying to be politically correct? Just by saying what he did about how the universe works had , I am sure, already caused panic/concern among the masses who were most likely 99% fundy loons.Maybe he was trying to cool the reaction (maybe also to avoid being burned at the stake)by throwing the creator thingy in there? We are not sure exactly how he really felt about the true existence of God. How do we know his intentions?

quote:

---

No, it isn't. That is beyond an unfair mischaracterization. ID'ists are tired of being slandered and mischaracterized by a population completely under the radar of what's going on and those fanatically imbued by strict naturalism.

---

Translation. IDists are tired of people telling the truth about ID. The DI is one big spin machine so the least people could do is believe the lies. If anyone's engaging in slander it's you - since if you know anythign you know that there are oppomemts of ID - like Ken Miller - who are certainly not materialists at all.

quote:

---

I thought we lived in the Democratic world were tolerance of others is supposed to be sought in all cases and that suppression is viewed negatively.

---

What you mean is that the opinions of those who disagree with you should be suppressed. You aren't complaining about suppression - you're complaining about a LACK of suppression.

I feel that the basic concept of ID itself is not all that outlandish or even unscientific. That is if you condense it into:If it can be shown that some structure of nature is impossible to form naturally then there must be some greater than nature reason for its existence.The problem comes when you try to put that into practice. It is here that ID as a movement has been woefully inept at best and intentionally decietful at worst.There also seems to be a split among IDers into what I call Pure ID and Creationists ID. In many circumstances these two groups are at odds as to what ID is.Pure IDers are those like Behe who are working hard to try to find an example of the position above. They believe in common decent just not unguided by random processes.Then you have the Creationists IDers who are basically just old time creationists who have started calling themselves IDers just to try to fit under the hood of the anonymous creator to try to side step the whole issue of secularism. The writers of Pandas are good examples of this kind of IDer. These people reject common decent wholesale for what amounts to ideological reasons because the ID concept itself says nothing for or against common decent. Their intent is demonstrated in their actions and in all cirumstances they are revealed to be nothing but creationists in disguise.The main failings of ID as a concept are that:1. They have not soundly rejected the inclusion of the creationists. The decit of this group has been demonstrated time and time again. They do nothing but bring disrepute to ID as demonstrated by the Wedge Document and their handling of ID in the public forum such as the Dover trial. This puts ID under the black mark and unscientific overtones that creationism brought to the table 30 years ago.2. None of the legitimate attempts at showing ID by the statement above have succeeded. IC is a failed concept by both admission and demonstration as IC has been shown to evolve. Beyond that they don't have much so the 'if' part of that statement is still waiting to be fulfilled!The biggest objection I have to ID is in its purpose. What good does it do? Even if it perpetually fails to show something that cannot be from nature the alternative, that there is nothing outside of nature, can never be shown. Not only is it extremely difficult to show, it is extremely difficult to falsify (prove that everything in the universe is a product of nature). At the end of the day, even if you could show or falsify the idea, there is very little practical benefit to either conclusion especially the latter.So it becomes difficult to talk about ID as a science. I think it could be science if it could clean house and demonstrate a reason for why we should spend money on it rather than trying to solve other pressing scientific concerns such as the gap between QM and GR. Even then, it seems it would only be a novelty and still not be a necessary part of education or policy.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

*delete*won't even dignify it with an answer.

I think that if there was a criticism of your post it's that you go to easy on ID.I don't know what Behe's position really is - his statement on common descent in Dawin's Black Box fell short of a full endorsement, although that could have been to avoid putting off the creationists even more. There's good reason to believe that he was a creationist not too many years before before he wrote it, though.Worse, Behe doesn't just fail to disavow the seamier side of ID - he's prepared to support it. For me, ID jumped the shark with the publication of Wells' Icons of Evolution, a mendacious piece of propaganda that didn't even try to advance a scientific case. But Behe was happy to endorse it, even if he should have known better.

Those actions by Behe are a perfect example of how they have abandoned any vestege of hope of becoming legitimate.It does seem that since his intial decent into ID that Behe has lightened up about common decent. How can he not? ID has nothing to do with common decent. It would as equally damning had he taking a firm position on the age of the earth. People could simply ask, "if you are not just creationism is disguise then why do you advance creationists positions that have nothing to do with showing that elements of nature are designed?"Beyond that I have heard a number of IDers essentially advocate some variety of strong Designed Evolution. You can usually tell what kind of IDer you are talking about by what particular aspect of evolutionary theory offends them.If they are offended that there is simply no credence given to God then they are a regular IDer.If they are offended at the idea that we are decended from other animals then they are creationists wearing and ID t-shirt. When asked what relevance common decent has to ID they will always refer you to the t-shirt.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Of course you won't answer it because it's true.It is NOT a "distortion" or "slander" to point out that the ID mainstream is thinly disguised creationism. I referred to some of the evidence in my earlier post. It IS slander to accuse others of fanaticism for saying things you don't like. THe more so sice some of them don't even agree with the views that supposedly motivate the,Your opponents presenting their views does not prevent you from presenting yours. Yet you claim that their doing so somehow runs counter to the ideals of Democracy. How can I interpet that as anything other than a claim that in a true democracy your opponents would be prevented from speaking out ?If you can't answer these points then at least try to deal with the evidence. Why is it theology to look into the nature of the Designer if the Designer is not God ? Why is the definition of Intelligent Design in Of Pandas and People identical to the definition of creationism in the original draft ?

Indeed, as Darwin noted:"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles DarwinI think there is, at the base level, a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. As I stated earlier, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims. Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppressing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconceived notions about this or that.Both the ToE and ID are inferences based on observation, logic, and deductive reasoning. The evolutionist sees no compelling reason to assume that the universe, and all that is contained therein, was the product of a greater intelligence. Rather, they feel evidence supports that a capriciousness in the universe exists and that we are the bi-product of ebb and flow, not going in any discernable direction.Proponents of ID see that the universe, and all that is contained therein, is far too complex for there to be chance after chance of a wholly chaotic universe constantly getting it right so often so as to even allow for the possibility of life's start or fruition. So where does that leave us?Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology. And, for face value, I understand why some would be apprehensive. At the same time, evolution smacks of atheism and an anti-theological stance. I'm of the opinion that the majority of detractors simply don't understand what ID really is-- that they are making knee-jerk reactions and jumping on the bandwagon. This is an appeal to authority. They automatically equate ID to Christian Creationism. Now, while I do believe that most proponents of ID would likely be Christian, this could only be just one more compelling reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH. But this isn't the rule and they shouldn't be made to feel sorry over their personal opinions.Some of you may know that I object to theology playing a role in the science classroom. And my belief comes not from them being diametrically opposed or incompatible in any way, but rather, I feel that it bears no immediate relevance to the subject. On one level, I think it was the Creator that bestowed upon us the ability of mathematical reasoning. But that doesn't mean that the Creator should play a role in solving any given theorem. However, if there really is "Creator(s)," or a "Greater Mind" behind the choreography, then we cannot in any sense get around discussing the Designer(s) on some level.ID proponents assert that we do not need to define what the Creator is, or assign a theological reason. I agree. They say, "just recognize that one might exist given the circumstances, given the evidence, and given all the reasons listed." So, what is everyone's true objection to ID then?I can go no further in the argument until I establish a solid reason why the objection exists. But, to answer some of the questions, far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but if evolution is true, then there is no need for a God, other than to create, perhaps, the first atom. And even that much, for many evolutionists, is suspect. And as Richard Dawkins has conceded, Darwin gave atheists the first compelling reason to be an atheist. Consider it another context. A supervising Creator is unnecessary. And anyone willing to understand the nature of evolution and the theory itself may be less willing to try to paste God onto a theory that has no need for Him.The only method that ID uses is already well-established facts concerning the laws of nature and demonstrably shows how chance plays no factor into it. It says that the obvious nature about nature, is that we were created by something as opposed to nothing. So, I'm unsure as to why anyone has such an aversion towards it.

If you respond, no, to both, then there is absolutely no need for a Creator, because a "Creator," by definition, is something that "creates." If He/She/It did not create a single thing, then He/She/It is simply existing, but does nothing at all; in which case His/Her/It's name needs to be changed from the "Creator," to the the "Being."Having said that, are there theistic evolutionists? Obviously. And I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that you are one of them. But the atheist cannot be an atheist without some explanatory power to back up his claims. Without evolution, he has to revert to the old thoughts about the universe being infinite. Its a no win situation for the atheist. Therefore, at its core, evolution is an atheistic doctrine.
No one here is trying to put a face to the Creator(s) because such a task is likely impossible to do in an ephemeral universe. If you want the Creator to be the FSM, more power to you. That question is theological in nature. My argument on this topic is whether a need of a Creator(s) exists. And being that life is either intentional or unintentional, then evolution of Intelligence quite nicely refutes the entire premise.Rules of the game might include:

• Does a natural law explain it?
• Could chance alone explain it?
• Does design explain it?

Some anti- ID'ists insist that we must unmask the Designer(s) in order to understand the design at all. That's patently false, however. Was a computer designed? We would say, 'obviously.' But could you obviously know who created it by looking inside the computer? No, you couldn't unless there was a manufacture sticker on it somewhere, and even then you could suppose that somebody just put the sticker on it to trick you. Is it neccesary to know who built it in order for you to plainly see that it was designed and did not form by chance? No.So, what's the problem? This whole thing is an ideological aversion, not a problem with science, as it were.

---

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

quote:

---

I think there is, at the base level, a very fundamental misunderstanding of what Intelligent Design and Evolution actually are. Neither ID nor the ToE is actually a branch of science. As I stated earlier, they are theories that employ science as a method to corroborate their claims.

---

And that's the same line that the "Creation Science" movement used. And it's no more true now than it was then.

quote:

---

Having said that, we must then distinguish whether or not proponents of both are either suppressing actual scientific evidence or distorting the actual evidence to fit their preconceived notions about this or that.

---

I'm sure that the ID movement would like to. But fortunately they don't have the power to do so. But when someone looks at the human eye, and points out that the structure is rather odd for something that was intelligently designed an ID spokesman is happy to claim that such arguments are theology.
Casey Luskin states: (This is, of course, a misrepresentation of Zimmer's argument.)

quote:

---

Its become apparent to me that people feel that ID smacks of theology.

---

And Luskin's statement is one reason why. If it's a mistake to think that the Deisgner is God, then why is ID spokesman making that very mistake ?

quote:

---

...if evolution is true, then there is no need for a God, other than to create, perhaps, the first atom.

---

That is wrong. Evolution doesn't deal withh the origin of the universe, the solar system or even the first life. It only deals with how life has developed and changed since then.

quote:

---

And as Richard Dawkins has conceded, Darwin gave atheists the first compelling reason to be an atheist.

---

Perhaps you can give a quote. It certainly isn't the usual quote from The Blind Watchmaker I'm certainly not convinced that Dawkins said such a thing.Oh and here we have you casually assuming that the Designer is God - or at least a God.

quote:

---

If you want the Creator to be the FSM, more power to you. That question is theological in nature.

---

If the identity of the designer is a theological question than it must be because the Designer is a God. So whether the designer is or is nto a God is purely a matter of convenience - you try to have it both ways. Why don't you stopp parroting the propaganda and actually think about it ?

quote:

---

Some anti- ID'ists insist that we must unmask the Designer(s) in order to understand the design at all. That's patently false, however. Was a computer designed? We would say, 'obviously.' But could you obviously know who created it by looking inside the computer?

---

No, that's a strawman. We're not asking for a name. We're asking what sort of designer is this - what does it want to achieve, what methods does it have available to it. Only by asking such questions could you produce a real alternative to evolution. We know the methods of evolution and how it operates - so we would need a similar view of he designer to equal the explanatory power of evolutionary theory.

I'll note that you didn't comment on the main thrust of my post which was the division within ID. On of the biggest problems that casual IDers have is the belief that ID is in direct opposition to evolution. Not only is this not true, if it was then it completely validates ID as a religious rather than scientific concept. Like I said in my previous post, real IDers only object to the "unguided" concept they BELIEVE is inherent in the ToE.You also did not respond to my comments about the usefulness of ID. Both of these lie at the heart of why ID is reject as a concept. Yes this is true. The difference is that in the case of ID they have no observations. There is no example of any systems that have been shown to be incapable of forming naturally. IC is dead and SC never had a leg to stand on. After that there really is nothing except a few improbability arguments that are flawed in their construction. Another reason that many people object to ID is exactly this. They start from what they want to see and are currently seeking evidence in order to show that their conclusion is true. Even if the purpose of evolution was to show that supernatural forces had no part in the development of life, it certainly did not start out in order to show such an idea. The lack of a need for supernatural forces in evolution is simply a consequence, not a goal. It is for this reason that ID and Evolution are night and day for some people when it comes to calling one or the other science. The only people I find who have a problem considering evolution to be agnostic on the issue of theology are the ones who push an anti-evolutionary agenda on the basis of theology. Just because and idea is neutal with regards to theism does not make it anti-theological. Most real IDers don't have a problem with this. Like I said before, the Pure IDers don't have any problem with evolution because ID is about the source not the mechanism. Yes I am. Just because evolution may empower atheism does not imply that evolution is atheistic. A implies B does not mean that B implies A. It is a simply logic error. Evolution may encourage atheism but I would argue that all forms of science based on methodological naturalism encourage atheism. You see a lot of religionless scientists in more than just the biological sciences. But none of that means that any science is itself atheistic. It is plainly and obviously a fallacy to think so. I agree. I just think that the primary object to ID has nothing to do with the identify of the designer. SOme people may say that but I don't think that is the primary reason why people call ID not a science. No the problem is not an ideological aversion. I outlined a number of reasons why ID is rejected as a science in my previous post. The inclusion of creationist or anti-evolutionist doctrine into ID is one primary reason why it is dismissed. It belies its source as masked creationism. There is no reason for an ID to take a position on the mechanisms of evolution, on common decent, or on the age of the earth because none of those have anything to do with design or lack of design. For all we known the designer used and directed evolution and there is some macroscale property looking at the entire history of evolution that will make this apparent.The champions of ID, the real IDers do not reject common decent. Think about that for a minute. It really is the only logical position to take for any kind of claim for ID to be science.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I'd just like to comment briefly on one small thing. At one point NJ put forth the notion that science feels threatened by ID because it introduces evidence of God. The truth is that ID and creationism are barely noticed within the scientific community. It only becomes an issue when it affects science education, and then only among those scientists who decide to become active. Even among those scientists active in efforts opposing ID and creationism, for most of them such efforts represent a very small part of their time.Scientists, like everyone else, realize that it's a big world out there, and lots of people believe lots of weird things. This has always been true and will always be true, and there is no way to change that. But in most of the world where science is taught, science teachers are for the most part teaching science, and scientists, who because science is their love and their profession, would like to keep it that way. And so for most scientists it is the threat posed by ID and creationism to science education that gets them involved. Most scientists don't really much care that the religious beliefs of the evangelical community reject evolution and most other science. They understand that science lectures aren't going to change religious beliefs.--Percy