Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?

Hey sine, keep repeating your misconception. Someone ought to start believing you if you repeat it enough times.

Please present the ID model.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Simply observing the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain and then somehow saying that they are too complex to have come around by evolution proves only that 1) You have absolutely no idea how evolution works, its mechanisms and its inherent non-randomness, and 2) You have little idea how science works. You cannot make the conclusion that God did it from the observation that life is very complicated and improbable. This is a negative argument, and negative arguments don't fly in science, unless of course, you have eliminated every single other possibility. If you haven't done so, then for all you know, a form of evolution we have not discovered yet could have created you. To say that complexity=designer is at the least premature. This entire ID movement is at the least premature.

For the third time, ID = creationism. The cdesign proponentists have admitted that ID = creationism.You can't deny the facts, Sin.

With that stance you've got an uphill struggle persuading a lot of people about the impartiality of your scientific methods.If a group of druids suddenly got together and tried to sell druidism as evolution, would it be acceptable to claim that 'drevolution proponentsuids' have 'admitted evolution = druidism' and therefore it is not science? If you did, I'd be just as suspicious of your motives as I am with your reaction to intelligent design.

ID is not science because it does not follow the scientific method.ID is creationism because its proponents say that it is creationism.These are two unrelated points.

I don't think Molbiogirl really meant that ID proponents have admitted that ID is actually creationism in disguise, because I don't think they admit that at all, plus ID has a number of positions that creationism objects to, such as an ancient earth and the sufficiency of evolution to explain much, though by no means all, of life's diversity.What I think Molbiogirl meant is that the distinctions between ID and creationism pale in comparison to their common opposition to evolution, and that this was exposed by the edit history of Of Pandas and People, the ID textbook that received so much attention at the Dover trial. Apparently ID advocates felt it sufficient to turn a creationist textbook into an ID textbook simply by substituting "designer" for "creator" and "intelligent design" for "creationism".While I do think your point that ID and creationism are different theories is undeniably accurate, that doesn't mean that it is an invalid shortcut for evolutionists to damn ID with creationist associations, because these associations most certainly exist. That's because both creationism and ID exist only as vehicles for fundamentalist Christians to oppose evolution. They are both politically based strategic and tactical responses driven by fundamentalist Christian perception of evolution as a significant secular threat.--Percy

Here is my take on it: Intelligent Design does not presuppose a god, rather it supposes an intelligence, a cognizance, a sentience. That does not, in any way, suppose ANY particular religion, least of all, the Judeo-Christian God.And to solidify that notion, there are deists that would strongly object to the assertion of inherent religion. Religion is theology. And it has nothing to immediately do with science. It can entail a Spinoza's God or Albert Einstein's God, who indifferently exists apart of the creation with no sense of personal revelation.ID also includes Direct Panspermia, which does not suppose ANY God whatsoever.While it may be true that many, if not most creationists latched on to the idea if ID, one does not necessitate the other. And I, for one, shouldn't be made to apologize for it.Put it this way: Supposing a God does exist who is responsible for the First Cause, are we supposed to pretend their is no design when there very well could be? I should hope not.So here is the problem that I see: This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion. But if you think not, then I am curious to hear why it is you and so many others feel threatened by it. Why does ID threaten?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

As NWR has pointed out, the scientific method has nothing to do with creationism nor ID. Unlike evolution, which has from its beginnings been science, ID is derived from creationism. Of Pandas and People is the source of the term "cdesign proponentistsism".Perhaps you'd like to explain how, a term cooked up after creos lost a court battle, a term first used in a creo textbook, somehow has scientific credibility.

And, as it has been mentioned over half a dozen times in this thread, panspermia is no explanation whatsoever. Panspermia just pushes the question back: "How did the creator get created?"This leads to an infinite regression problem.Have you an answer for infinite regression?Not to mention the fact that ID was cooked up in response to the creos losing a court battle.Not to mention the fact that ID was quite literally cut and pasted into a creo textbook, thus "cdesign proponentistsism".Not to mention the fact that the leading cdesign proponentists admitted, either on the stand on Dover or in subsequent interviews, that the intelligent designer is god! Wrong, Juggs. The creos came up with the idea with the express intent of circumventing the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard. Ah, you xians jes love to cry persecution, doncha?ID is not science. That's a fact.If you think ID is a science, then perhaps you'd like to offer:1. A method by which ID can be tested.
2. A prediction that ID has made.
3. A new hypothesis proposed by ID.

I haven't seen any evidence of this alleged "systematic suppression". What I have seen are objections to putting it in the science classroom (where it does not belong).

I can see you are reacting to the questions of intelligence and design on the basis of where they came from, or who asked them, rather than their absolute content. That would not give scientists credibility in my opinion.

ID -- if taken to it's logical conclusion -- would be deism, which uses all science to understand ... you don't see this kind of IDian.ID -- not taken to it's logical conclusion -- is only half-formed and lumbered with leftover preconceptions ... you do see this kind of IDian.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.

She said... Sounds like you may be suggesting she get "on message".There is little point debating the politics of a situation using technical references. If Molbiogirl's comment can morph into the opposite of what it says then her argument is a little too flexible for my liking. But political counter-strategy masquerading as scientific argument and rigour only appears as corrupted science.The fact that such a poison chalice as "intelligent design" even exists poses a fundamental question for science. It has chosen to pre-empt a theory for lack of confidence in scientific definition. It is as if science could be undermined by the ramifications of its own definition of intelligent design, and so accepts one which avoids the problems.

Hi Sinequanon,I think you're getting too hung up on the way different people express the same thing. Molbiogirl expresses things rather directly, and she simply chooses not to acknowledge that IDists deny what is obvious to everyone else. Certainly Dover removed all doubt, not that there really was any for those familiar with the issues, that ID is simply thinly disguised creationism that springs from the same motivation to deny evolution. Actually, you're describing creationism and ID. Both direct almost all their efforts politically. What effort they exert toward science is devoted to giving a scientific veneer to their religious beliefs with an eye toward bolstering their political efforts at convincing school boards and state legislatures that they really are science. Where ID and creationism do not direct their effort is in conducting actual science.--Percy