What does ID theory say?

From the Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute:

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.

From this it looks like that ID theory is designed to push a particular fundamentalist view of religion and defeat "scientific materialism" -- their code words for pretty much everything that has been developed in western culture since The Enlightenment.And to do this they pretend ID is science when its goals are completely religious in nature.No wonder they call it the Dishonesty Institute.

---

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

Ray, give it up.You're not convincing anyone with your creationism-masquerading-as-science act.

---

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

If you want to play with statistics, half of all adults in the US are below the median in intelligence.None of these statistics means anything.Science is not subject to a vote of the masses. Science relies on evidence.Religious belief relies only on faith, which loosely translated means, "Trust me!"ID is no better. Science might have a little more interest if ID ever, just once, came up with something that was not strictly in line with biblical belief. But it can't! ID is religion with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling the school boards and courts, so that creationism can once again be taught in place of science.What a joke!

---

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

And how do you know "it aint true?" Did your tribal shaman tell you so? And what evidence did that shaman present? Or was it simply a case of "Trust me!" as we generally see in religions? Practitioners of Roman Catholicism, the world's largest religious denomination, disagree with you. As do scientists. Have you ever considered that your ideas are the ones that are kooky? So the Pope is an atheist? That will no doubt come as quite a surprise in some circles. So now the Pope and 1.1 billion catholics are "fools and buffoons?"You sure know how to make yourself look silly. I encourage you to keep posting though, as you and the arguments you present are doing your side no good at all.

---

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

Why do you even bother posting in the Science Forum?Certainly nothing you post resembles science (except, perhaps, for creation "science").Are you evangelizing among the "Darwinists" as a penance or something? That's often what it seems like.I would really like to know, because your posts make no contributions to science and perhaps a reply would help me understand where you are coming from.

---

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

Behe's ideas concerning irreducible complexity have been shown to be wrong. Here are some specific reasons, along with supporting articles:

​

The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary (or, Why Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is Silly)

​

A simple and concise explanation for why the anti-evolutionary argument from "irreducibly complexity" is flawed — gradual evolution by natural selection readily evolves "irreducibly complex" structures.

​

Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?

​

Keith Robison reviews Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, which claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" — that in order to evolve, multiple parts would have to arise simultaneously. But is it true?

​

Is the Complement System Irreducibly Complex?

​

One of the molecular assemblages that Michael Behe claims is "irreducibly complex" is the complement system, an arm of the vertebrate immune system so named because it "complements" the effect of antibodies. This essay outlines the functioning of the complement system and undercuts Behe's argument by showing that simpler yet still functional versions of it exist in nature.

Would you like more examples?

---

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