Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?

Only if we teach the design controversy as well ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

By "teaching the controversy" I mean of course the same sentiment that George Bush put forth a couple of years ago on the matter. He said that ID should be taught in schools alongside evolution so that students know what the debate is about and so they know both sides of the story. I don't mean the controversies within evolution or ID themselves.

Ok, who designed the designer?

Nope.It's the IDiots who have defined ID as supernatural.Dembski recently admitted that ID is creationism: OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance

Yeah, Sin.Why don't you clear up that whole infinite regression problem I mentioned earlier?

Hi Org. Welcome to EvC. The following is Merriam Webster's primary definitions of religion: I see nothing in the above which defines the scientific aspects of the observation, practice and applications of intelligent design as religion. That the majority of ID advocates are religious does not make ID a religion perse.Intelligent design researchers, archeologists, scientists and cosmologists who do so for the purpose of falsifying or verifying the Biblical model are not practicing religion in the persuit of falsifying the Biblical model.For example, marine biologist Dr. Lennart Moller's expeditions to Aqaba including sophisticated underwater photography with a marine research ship came about by the Biblical reference to the location of Mt Sinai being in Arabia. That the Biblical model was what pre-empted the research does not make the research a religious practice. This can be applied to much activity going on by ID based science etc.Another example would be mathmatical probabilities and statistics, observation of the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain etc relative to ID probabilities etc. Discussion and debate in the classroom or any other location relative to these is not practicing one's religion as per the definition of religion. Edited by Buzsaw, : typo fix

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, aren't you suppose to be against intelligent design?

Wherever did you get that notion?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

OK, Buzz, let's assume that creationism ... oops I mean cdesign proponentistsism ... oops I mean ID ... is not "religion".Howzabout "religious"? Or is creationism not religious?

ID has asked no awkward questions. It raises some serious issues about the public understanding of science and what scientists should be doing towards presentation. However, as far as the actual science goes, Intelligent Design simply distorts and lies about current knowledge.If you can find some awkward questions that ID has raised...I'd be interested in hearing them. And implementation - another thing ID proponents never seem to want to speak about in front of scientists. When you ask a ID proponent about the implementation they will say that Intelligent Design is only about the study of design, purpose or directive principle in nature (teleology). When they are looking for funding and support, then the Designer starts getting an identity.

Scientists should be questioning the definition, not accepting it because "somebody said so". The reason they do accept it is to avoid debate. It allows them to be ambivalent about the term "intelligent design" and paint as creationism theories which are not.The infinite regression issue is not specific to intelligent design. The laws of nature have the same problem.

sinequannon Bold statement sine.Care to show the steps that determine in what way the laws of nature are infinitely regressive?

More precisely, howzabout religious folks, some of who study, research and work to verify/falsify the ID model relative to what is observed.Also this: Many of the "religious" insist along with their secularist non-religious friends that the ID model should be restrictively ignored in education and science with the effect of imposing the secularistic model exclusively on the students and science arena.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Don't you find it a bit suspicious that the people who are pushing ID the hardest are the fundmentalist type?

Well, a creationist like yourself insist that the universe and everything we see in it was created in 6 days by the god of Abraham. ID, on the other hand, technically insist that the designer could have been aliens or flying spag monster.Furthermore, ID has absolutely no problem with evolution. Evolution, in fact, is a large part of the intelligent design movement... and I know you are against evolution.The theory of evolution states that the bush/tree of life starts out at the trunk or a common ancestor and through eons of evolution branches out into many parts of life. ID officially states that life began at different bases but then evolved to the variations we see today. In other words, ID officially believes in different beginnings for different taxa of life where evolution picked it up and created new species out of the various beginnings.To simply put, the theory of evolution gives an image of one big gigantic bush. Intelligent Design gives an image of hundreds of small bushes. Creationism gives an image of millions upon millions of dots, each representing a different species.I bet you didn't know that part about ID huh.So, again, officially speaking anyway, ID is against every fibre of the creationist movement. I don't know how you can support ID when biblical evidence is contrary to ID. Oh, have I mentioned that ID officially believes in a very old and ancient Earth?