What exactly is ID?

I think ID is called into question because:1) we can clearly trace the origins of the modern ID movement in the aftermath of the Edwards decision as a replacement for the failed creation "science," itself a replacement for creationism, in the public schools;2) ID does not follow the scientific method; and3) the very few ideas put forth as evidence for ID have been readily shown to be accounted for by other causes (e.g., irreducible complexity).Now if the proponents of ID produced evidence that could not be accounted for by other means, that would be a worthwhile avenue for investigation. To date they have not been able to do so. Everything they have produced has either a documented or a likely natural explanation. Nothing they have produced clearly requires the existence or intervention of deities. Science has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is empirical evidence. Science has developed a method to treat that evidence, and so far it has worked quite well.Science had to start with a blank slate -- that is, knowing nothing. It was only natural that scientists started with things near at hand and easily measured and quantified. And in several centuries of dealing with the natural world, science has been able to explain a huge percentage of what it has addressed. That's not a bad track record.A number of early natural historians tried to fit the natural world into a biblical framework with, for example, subjects such as flood geology. Others, going back to Bishop Usher, have tried to fit everything into a young earth framework. In neither case did the evidence fit, and both of these fields of investigations have largely been dismissed as nonproductive. The RATE Project was a recent attempt to document a young earth through radiometric dating and a changing decay constant, and other related research, but it was unable to do so. The supernatural has simply not been shown to have the explanatory power in science that the techniques used by scientists have.Now the way science operates is not atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods). Science simply does not deal with deities in any way even though a significant percentage of scientists are theists of one kind or another.The real bottom line is that, so far, nothing has been encountered by science that clearly suggests or requires the abandonment of the current scientific method and the inclusion of spirits or deities as a part of scientific explanation. Rather the opposite has happened; one by one things attributed to deities have been shown to have natural explanations instead. Diseases and lightning/thunder being caused by spirits are two simple examples out of many.Those who believe in deities don't much appreciate science for doing this; they would much rather have science validate their beliefs. This has led to attacks on science and attempts to change the way science operates, as well as challenges to science based on what can only be described as pseudo-science or junk science. Geocentrism is a good example of this. I'm afraid that ID has to be considered in this category as well.(In this discussion I have not singled out evolution because evolution is a science as it follows the scientific method. It is one of the recent talking points of creationists to claim to "respect the 'true' sciences, but certainly not evolution; it's not a real science like physics or chemistry.")To summarize; ID is not rejected just because of its clear origins in Christian fundamentalism. It has been rejected, to date, because it does not measure up as science.

---

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

ID is to creationism as Paranthropus boisei is to Homo ergaster.*It was "designed" to fool the public, but it ran into the courts and expert witnesses.Looks like it will have to be replaced soon with some other dodge to sneak fundamentalism back into the schools. What'll it be next time?========* an offshoot or subset doomed to quick extinction.

---

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

You are confusing two different IDs.One, as has been pointed out on this thread, vanishes into antiquity most likely to the very origins of religious thought. That is apparently what you are referring to.The other is clearly a recent construct "designed" by creationists/fundamentalists with a very specific purpose in mind--to sneak religion back into the public schools, this time (hopefully) masqueraded more effectively than creation "science" was.And then along came Dover. (Whoops! Back to the drawing board!)

---

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

That's not a good way to approach this. But let me welcome you anyway! I hope you stick around for a while. Several points:Evolution is not "survival of the fittest"--it is reproduction of the barely adequate. Or, if you want to be technically correct it is change in the genome from generation to generation. That's all.As for "why evolve?" That is pretty simple--populations evolve to better survive when conditions change. Within each population there is a range of variation, enhanced by occasional mutations. When conditions change that range will move up or down the bell curve to better adapt to those conditions. By doing so they are better able to pass their genes on to the next generation. Over time those changes result in speciation, but that was not the plan from the beginning. Speciation just sort of happens.Beyond that you might try philosophy or theology or one of those other nebulous subjects for the "why" questions.

---

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

Why not? That's about as good an answer as I can provide. That's just the way evidence suggests things worked out. Not sure if I follow this exactly. I'm not sure if you are saying ID does or does not provide a blueprint. Perhaps you could rephrase it?

---

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

Have we really established that Smoothie accepts the estimates science has come up with for the age of the earth and the development of the earliest life forms?It seems that he accepts biblical literalism in a number of cases (e.g. geocentrism).Given the hundreds of posts he has made, most of which are chopped up into little snippets, who can tell any more?I suspect that the whole reason for his support of genetic entropy is the biblical belief in "the fall" and devolution from that original "perfect" state.He keeps claiming not to be a Christian, but I don't recall him disavowing biblical literalism. He claims to derive his facts and evidence from science, but the problem for this is, that ca. 99.9% of science contradicts what he is claiming! I really do suspect that he is a biblical literalist trying to "minister to the heathen" here on these threads.Maybe it is because I have suggested this any number of times that he won't respond to anything I post, eh?

---

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

You just flunked Archaeology 101 for too many reasons to explain--and that's just based on that one broken sentence!Better stick to creation "science" where facts and logic don't matter, or to biblical literalism, where nothing else matters.When it comes to the real world your claims are EPIC FAIL!

---

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

Let's see a practical application of ID, from which we may be able to learn more about what exactly ID is. How does ID explain the progression seen in these images if it is not by new additions or changes in the genome? "A" is a modern chimp: use it for comparison only, as it is not a part of the progression.Image source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg

---

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

Can't ID exist without reference to evolution?When I posted those pictures to you I asked for "A practical application of ID" not a flawed critique of evolution. I am still waiting for your explanation, using ID "theory," of those various specimens and how they relate to one another.(And don't bother to try and tell me what those various skulls are and what they mean. Half of my graduate work was in the fields of fossil man and human osteology. I have handled and studied casts of most of those.)

---

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

It apparently doesn't.I posted that well known picture of hominid fossil skulls, asking for an explanation based on ID "theory" and all I got in return was a diatribe on how evolution is wrong.I'm still waiting for ID's explanation of the change over time that is shown in that photograph.

---

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

So what you are saying is that there was no change from one to the next?It sounds like you are saying that each skull represents a created kind.If so, that is not an ID explanation. That is a biblical explanation.Don't you have an ID explanation?

---

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

Of related interest:The End of Intelligent Design?
Feb 9, 2010
Stephen M. BarrThe End of Intelligent Design? | Stephen M. Barr | First ThingsIn the comments section, note the comment by Nick Matzke for some additional background on the ID movement, and in particular their views on common descent and the age of the earth.

---

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

Don't bother to use analogies from archaeology. You have shown that you never studied archaeology and you are making massive errors.Bifacial flaking has been well studied in archaeology and neither wind nor erosion can do flaking, let alone bifacial flaking. You're flunking Archaeology 101 on a regular basis here.One of my professors in graduate school had a room full of rocks collected from streams and other places where rocks can come into contact with one another. We spent hours studying those, and learning to distinguish between natural and man-made flaking patterns.Bifacial flaking is almost never found in nature, and what may be found is the simplest form.Find some other field from which to generate your incorrect analogies.

---

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

ID was "designed" specifically to reintroduce Christian theology back into the public schools, thereby to counter the theory of evolution and "materialistic scientific theories."From the Wedge Document:

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.

So, since ID is providing "a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories" we need to see what explanation ID has for those skulls. What is ID's scientific alternative? If there is no ID explanation, how do you know they are not evidence for anything? You must have some explanation for those skulls that demonstrates they are not evidence. There seems to be a lot of subjects that ID "scientists" don't study, eh? But they sure seem to be full of opinions in those fields. Look at the writings of the various PR flacks from the Discovery Institute for examples. Seems like every scientific finding that is announced gets a "rebuttal" from one of those folks. But that is the problem for ID--those fossils are presented as a progression, and they are evidence for evolution! That is what this squabble is really all about, the rejection by creationists, and hence IDers, of evolutionary theory. So, since ID rejects current scientific explanations for those skulls, what is the ID explanation? And what is the basis for that rejection? Fine. Document this statement, and show how it is "easily demonstrated" that the skulls don't show human development. What evidence do you have?And while you are at it, show how ID "theory" accounts for the scientific evidence and offers an alternate explanation "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." (That should make for some interesting reading.)Likewise, you and other IDers must have some evidence that these skulls do not document "human" change. I'd like to see that evidence (although I think you rely on religious belief at this point, and that you have no scientific evidence.)You have yourself talked into a corner here. You seem to want to have it both ways, and it simply won't fly.And that is still another reason why ID is exposed as religion lite, rather than a fledgling science.

---

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

Those efforts are useful because they are trying to fool those non-creationists who don't know any better.That is the whole intent of creation "science" and its illegitimate offspring, ID.The creationists know they are dishonestly packaging religion in the guise of science. Why else would they call it creation "science" if not to steal the good name of science for their dogma?And when that was discovered and disallowed, why else would they come up with ID--pretending to be science and attempting to hide the religion, when the entire goal of that effort was to sneak religion back into the classrooms?You would think they at least could be honest about it, eh?

---

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