What exactly is ID?

If you are going to debate scientists it would help a great deal if you used scientific terms correctly. The meaning of the term "evolution" is very clear--to scientists--and it does not include origins of life.Evolution is change in the genome, which over time adds up, and one of the results we see is speciation. That's why Darwin titled his book, The Origin of Species rather than The Origin of Life.This mistake on your part renders the rest of your post moot.

---

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

I spent six years in graduate school, much of that time studying evolution.I don't need fundamentalists to explain the data or theory to me. Try someone who doesn't know any better.

---

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

But after 3.5+ billion years genetic entropy shows no signs of eliminating millions upon millions of species that are now thriving worldwide--most of which are thriving just fine in spite of your belief in the "fall" and your attempt to link that to genetic entropy.Genetic entropy = Yawn!The "fall" = Myth.And you are still ignoring these inconvenient facts even though I've posted them a half dozen times. That's OK. The rest of the folks reading the thread know you are ducking the issue.

---

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

So after I make about six requests for a response to the extended time involved, and the lack of this genetic entropy in all of that time, you finally respond to another poster with the requested information. I guess I'm on your ignore list for bringing up these inconvenient facts, eh?And after all this time your answer ranges from non sequitur to nonsense!You first throw out the "what if" of questioning the long duration of life on earth. (I figured from the beginning you were coming from a belief in biblical literalism.) That "what if" does nothing to dispute that long age, estimated at over 3.5 billion years. Unless you can provide some evidence that life has not been around that long your response is both meaningless and a non sequitur.Then you finally admit that genetic entropy is nonsense. "Well, it hasn't killed life off after 3.5 billion years, but just you wait! It'll get you yet! It'll get you all!" (Sounds like a line from a B movie.)In spite of your belief in biblical literalism, doesn't it ever occur to you that this genetic entropy concept is just wrong? That it isn't going to happen as you have been telling us in this thread? That it is a religious belief based on "the fall" rather than a scientific concept based on evidence?Or are you so committed to biblical literalism that you just can't entertain any idea that contradicts the bible?

---

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

So in another 3.5 billion years we're in real trouble, eh? Or is it 10 billion years? 20 billion?I'm not about to worry about something that is going to happen in 20 billion years (if then) when the sun will consume the earth in a quarter that time.You keep making these claims but you have yet to quantify "genetic entropy" in terms that mean anything. Nor are you able to support it from mainstream science. When the only support for an extreme claim is from a scientist who is also a fundamentalist or a creationist, I tend to want a second opinion.And you have yet to convince me that your "belief" in genetic entropy is based on something from science and not biblical literalism, i.e. the fall and a young earth. Belief in those two concepts would certainly alter your perception of reality and contribute to your contra-scientific faith in this genetic entropy.What is this, the third or fourth concept that you have pushed here -- all the while claiming they are based on science -- when mainstream science says the exact opposite and the only real source that agrees with you is the bible? Are we in for a thread on a flat earth or pi=3 next? How about the flood? Let's do the flood next -- that is one area I have some good data to share with you.

---

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

In the US, and currently -- yes.

---

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

ID was cooked up as a scheme to sneak Christianity, and in particular, Christian fundamentalism, back into the schools after the Edwards Supreme Court decision. The record is extremely clear on that.ID has been pushed as a political movement nearly 100% by Christians.The Discovery Institute, the single most prolific proponent of the modern ID movement, was caught out with their Wedge Document planning a dishonest scheme to push ID in the guise of science. A couple of relevant quotes: I, for one, would not like to have to do science as mandated by "Christian and theistic convictions" and enforced by some reincarnation of the Inquisition. But, that's exactly what the Dishonesty Institute is looking to promote here. Check out their funding for this ID nonsense; they have had some folks funding their efforts who want to have this country governed by biblical principles.And that's what is behind the ID movement in the US.No thanks. The Enlightenment showed us that we don't have to kowtow to the shamans any longer; there is no going back to those Dark Ages, as much as many fundamentalists would like to.

---

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

Can you show that it is wrong? I worded it very carefully. Floods and what-not are not a part of ID. ID is just a cover story, creationism stripped to it's barest essentials. It has to be that way to keep up the pretense that it is science. The evidence is clear that the modern ID movement in the US started after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was "designed" to replace creation "science" and get Christian fundamentalism back into the schools in the false guise of science. This was shown in detail in the Dover decision.If you disagree, show where this is incorrect. But be prepared to show how the Discovery Institute, and their tame creationist scientists, are promoting actual science instead of a narrow brand of fundamentalist Christianity. What is their research budget? Where are their laboratories? Do they employ any scientists who are not dedicated creationists first?

---

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

I think you are taking my comments beyond what I actually stated.If you go back upthread, here is my comment: If you'll note, in this comment anyway, I have made no claims about "all creationists", or "Christian creationism." ID was found throughout William Paley's Natural Theology (1802), but that has nearly nothing to do with the current ID movement. Paley's ideas were sleeping peacefully, mostly forgotten and largely ignored, until the late 1980s.The current movement dusted off some old ideas, such as Paley's, and started a political push to disguise creationism/creation "science" in still another garb in an effort to sneak it back into the schools after the Edwards decision.Given this, I stand by my comment -- in the US, and currently, intelligent design is the same as the "ID Movement." The differences are insignificant.

---

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

There is no evidential basis for ID. It is religion pure and simple, with a "sheep's clothing" of science draped poorly over the top. The few actual claims that have been made in support of ID (e.g., design "theory," IC) have been shown to be incorrect. Generally laughably incorrect. Recall Behe on the witness stand at Dover?

---

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

We don't need to show that. They do a magnificent job of showing that for us. Currently, in the US, the separation between biblical literalism and ID is minimal to virtually non-existent. See the Dishonesty Institute's various activities as evidence for this, as they are the primary proponent for ID. Particularly, look at the many ways the Mighty Casey [Luskin] has struck out.* I'm not interested in showing anything concerning creationism and ID until it is claimed that that belief either constitutes science, or is supported by science. Examples of this are the global flood at about 4,350 years ago and a young earth. You can include ID as a third example, as that is essentially what it is -- religious belief purporting to be science.When creationists make such claims they are subject to disproof.-----------* Sorry ;-)

---

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

I didn't see the sarcasm tag on your post. An oversight?Because I certainly hope you don't expect us to take any of that seriously ??!!!?

---

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

All of it.The theory of evolution covers this quite well without having to abandon all of science and the evidence supporting it and propose instead invisible and imaginary deities of various stripes.There is a lot more evidence to support the idea of space aliens being involved somewhere than these invisible and imaginary deities. (Anything is greater than absolute zero.)

---

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

It's getting late and I am not following this very well.Could you rephrase this into simpler terms and I'll try again in the morning?I would appreciate that very much. I don't think I can do this justice right now.Thanks!

---

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

From Wiki:

quote:

---

Intelligent design originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state.[4] Its first significant published use was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[21] Several additional books on the subject were published in the 1990s. By the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents had begun clustering around the Discovery Institute and more publicly advocating the inclusion of intelligent design in public school curricula.[22] With the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture serving a central role in planning and funding, the "intelligent design movement" grew increasingly visible in the late 1990s and early 2000s, culminating in the 2005 Dover trial which challenged the intended use of intelligent design in public school science classes.[7] ...

​

The Center for Science and Culture serves as the hub of the intelligent design movement. Nearly all of the luminaries of intelligent design are either CSC advisors, officers, or fellows. Stephen C. Meyer, a fellow of the Discovery Institute and founder of the CSC, serves as Senior Fellow and Vice President, and Phillip E. Johnson is the Program Advisor. Johnson is commonly presented as the movement's "father" and architect of the center's Wedge strategy and "Teach the Controversy" campaign, as well as the Santorum Amendment.

---

And also from Wiki, concerning the Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture:

quote:

---

Funding

​

The Center is funded through the Discovery Institute, which is largely underwritten by grants and gifts from wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservative individuals and groups, such as Howard Ahmanson Jr., Philip F. Anschutz, Richard Mellon Scaife, and the MacLellan Foundation.[43][44][45] [46]

​

Published reports place the Discovery Institute's budget for ID-related programs at over $4 million per year. The Center's expenditures can be assumed to be substantial based on the scope and quality of the Center's extensive public relations campaigns, materials and contributions to local and regional ID and Teach the Controversy efforts.

​

CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, admits most of the Center's money comes from wealthy donors from the Christian right.[44] Howard Ahmanson Jr., who provided $1.5 million in funding that established the Center, has said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives."[47] The MacLellan Foundation commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."[48] Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign. Until 1995, Ahmanson sat on the board of the Christian reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation,[49] and funds many causes important to the Christian right, including Christian Reconstructionism.

---

Not a lot of science there, eh? Sounds like Nuggin was right. ID is a religious movement pushed by Christian fundamentalists who want all the rest of us eventually to live under biblical rule.You may prefer to deny the religious basis for ID, but it certainly is not being pushed by science! The few real scientists who espouse ID seem all to be creationists first and scientists second.

---

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