ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism

quote:

---

As it currently is, the Discovery Institute is running ID like a political campaign. Be vague on how things fit into the big picture - Don't alienate your support base, which currently includes much of the YEC movement. In general, a lot of smoke and mirror obscuring what little substance they have.

---

Although Wiki is not the most reliable source, this is what it has to say about the Discovery Institute's funding (footnotes omitted):

quote:

---

The institute does not provide details about its backers, out of "harassment" fears according to Chapman. A review of tax documents on GuideStar nonprofit reports and Forms 990 for donors, grantmakers, and businesses, a Web site that collects data on foundations, showed grants and gifts totaling $4.1 million in 2003, the most recent year available. This is in contrast to $1.4 million in 1997, the oldest year available. The records show financial support from 22 foundations, at least two-thirds of which state explicitly religious missions. The Discovery Institute's CSC director, Stephen C. Meyer, has reported much of the institute's money comes from such wealthy Christian fundamentalist conservatives like Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," as well as the MacLellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture." Ahmanson, who now sits on the Discovery Institute board, had pledged in 2001 $2.8 million to the institute through 2003. Most Discovery Institute donors have also contributed significantly to the Bush campaign. The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its intelligent design agenda is religious, and downplays the religious source of much of its funding. In an interview of Stephen C. Meyer when ABC News' asked about the Discovery Institute's many evangelical Christian donors the institute's public relations representative stopped the interview saying "I don't think we want to go down that path." Source

---

Pretty strange funding for a scientific organization. Not surprisingly, they have made no discoveries beyond that which P.T. Barnum is widely, but erroneously, credited with well over a century ago.The goals seem to fit with those of EvC poster Cold Foreign Object as espoused in this thread.

quote:

---

(From a previous post) For example the Buzsaw Hypothesis has all of the animals and mankind being intelligently designed suddenly in one 24 hour period by an omniscient and omnipotent designer.

---

quote:

---

1. The BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) ID model factors in some scientific tests such as compatibility to 1, 2, and 3LoT. IMO I've debated quite sucessfully in the EvC archives that my hypothesis does pass these tests.

​

2. The BH ID model contends that conventional dating methodology as not being applicable to the BH model in that the properties of a Biblical pre-flood earth and atmosphere would be significantly different than a more uniformatarian model.

​

3. The BH ID model would factor such tests as historical data, mathmatical probabilities, corroborative evidence, archeological research, etc supportive to the Biblical ID model, most of which are deemed not applicable to conventional secularist models.

---

It would seem that the question of ID as Science vs. ID as Creationism is answered--for you ID is creationism.It seems like you are just seeking the trappings of science, without the rigors of the scientific method, to bolster your beliefs.