Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

Thanks for starting a new thread. You're correct, we were getting off topic on the other one.I'll stand by my post that you cited in the opening post, but I'll make one addition.This comes from the infamous Wedge Document, an internal fundraising and planning document of the Discovery Institute that somehow leaked and ended up on the internet.The Discovery Institute, you might remember, is funded in part by folks who want to see the country come under biblical rule, and is the chief proponent of intelligent design.Here are two passages from that document:

quote:

---

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

​

Governing Goals

​

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

---

So there you have it; two passages from the Discovery Institute's infamous leaked document.Nowhere is there any plan to do scientific research, nor any mention of laboratories and other scientific necessities. Rather, what we see are plans to force science to accept censorship and domination by religious belief. What else can "science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" mean if not "you do it our way or else?"Not exactly a scientific attitude, eh? And this is the main force behind intelligent design.Now you try to tell me ID is science, and not religion.I'll get the popcorn going.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ID is more of a tool than a true ideological belief. It is a tool to "wedge" religion back into the schools under the false guise of science.As a tool, it has attracted both OEC and YEC folks, as well as many folks who don't care what it is as long as it can be used against evolution.The few scientists who have been pushing it generally seem to be in the OEC camp.Then there's the Dishonesty Institute, more interested in ID as a tool for destroying people's trust in science in any way they can so they can institute a theocracy. Or in their own words, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (Nothing short of a theocracy will force science to change its inherent methods; they just hope you don't realize that.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

None of this argues against my point. The impetus for ID is the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard, which rightly banned creation "science" from the schools.Creation "science" and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are creationism in disguise--and they are not fooling anyone.How many of those few "scientists" who support ID turn out to be fundamentalists first and scientists second? Pretty much all, as there is no science to ID--its all religious apologetics dishonestly taking on the trappings of science in hopes of fooling some school boards and sympathetic state legislators.And don't forget, fundamentalism is anti-science! Just look at the statements of faith and tenets of belief of the various creationist organizations on the internet! (If you're not familiar with them I'll be happy to post some, or links to some. In essence, they all say bible first and science second. That's the exact opposite of science!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Fundamentalism and its illegitimate stepchild, ID, are anti-science.They both start out with the "answers" and bend, ignore, or misrepresent scientific data until they make it all fit. This is the exact opposite of science and the scientific method.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. You can have it all, and knock yourself out!I'll stick to science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The ID movement as it exists today arose largely in response the US Supreme Count's Edwards decision that determined creation "science" was religion and not permitted in schools.ID was an attempt to file the (religious) serial numbers off the same set of beliefs so that it could be snuck back into the schools.Here's some evidence from a creationist textbook and how it changed through different editions before and after the Edwards decision (source):

quote:

---

​

Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34:
Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.

​

Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

​

Of Pandas and People (1987, intelligent design version), p. 3-41:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

​

---

Did you catch that "cdesign proponentsists?" That's from a poor cut-and-paste job changing "creationists" to "design proponents." And this came imediately after the Edwards decision!And as to why not Muslim or Hindu? The folks pushing ID are Christian fundamentalists, and they're not about to accept a competing brand.But they are willing to be dishonest in their approach, pretending to do science when they are actually pushing their narrow view of religion. Actually, they are anti-science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content, add banner.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Quote mining:

...a persistent and basically dishonest practice, frequently engaged in by creationists, that has become known as "quote-mining." While the etymology of this term is obscure, the definition is clear enough. It is the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, "which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored."

See The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines.Creationists can't find quotations by reputable scientists that disparage evolution, so they manufacture the quotations they want, often from material that is arguing the exact opposite point.In other words, its a form of lying.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And it sure doesn't sound like science. More like the opposite of science.Summary: yes, ID has creationist roots--it was "designed" to sneak creationism back in to the schools.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.