Does intelligent design have creationist roots?

First of all, I need to point out that guilt by association is an informal fallacy, meaning it's a fallacy only when it is fallacious to do so.The people who push for ID do so have repeatedly admitted that they believe the IDer behind the design is the judeo-christian god. When asked if it was possible for the IDer to have been some kind of extraterrestrial or alien, they almost always unanimously answer "no". Guilt by association in this case IS NOT fallacious.On the other hand, the theory of evolution says nothing about a creator. Even if 99.9% of the people who believe in the theory of evolution also believe in god, there is absolutely no religious motive for them to support the theory. Guilt by association in this case IS fallacious.

Many years ago, I attended a lecture by a prominent creationist (can't remember his name... he's a fat guy). He was one hell of a good speaker. But what was good about him pretty much ended there. Since I had a background in science, I was able to see through the quote mines and outright lies he presented.For example, he presented a science text book and quoted the author saying "the age of a fossil could be determined by the age of the rock" and then he quoted another section of the book by the same author "the age of a rock could be determined by the age of the fossil." At this point, people in the audience, which comprised almost entirely of science illiterate people, started laughing at what they thought was an apparent absurdity in logic. Anyone who's ever had a 101 course in science should have been able to understand the meaning behind those two quotes. But the lecturer was depending on people's ignorance of science and made the author of the science book sound like a dumbass.By the end of the lecture, he concluded that from all the evidence (aka bullshit) he presented during the lecture, the Earth must only be about 6 thousand years old and a world wide flood was responsible for all the geological formations and fossils we see today. What followed was a thunderous applause by the crowd. I don't know which pissed me off more: the fact that the guy was lying right through his teeth or the fact that the unwashed masses actually bought his lies.

Just like considering any other informal fallacy. Take the appeal to authority, for example. Is it always fallacious appeal to authority? Heck, no. That's why we have experts. It's only fallacious when we refer to an improper authority like referring to the local pastor on the latest scientific discoveries.In other words, use your common sense.Guilt by association is not always a fallacy. Prominent IDists have repeatedly admitted that they think it's silly to think the IDer is something like alien or Buddha. And yet they have also repeatedly admitted that they believe the IDer is the judeo-christian god.Have you even heard of Cdesign Proponentsists? Have you even considered the fact that IDists seem more busy with advertising ID rather than perform honest-to-god real scientific experiments? When was the last time they even published a real scientific paper on ID?The totality of the evidences point to a very clear motivation behind the ID movement.On the other hand, the idea that the theory of evolution somehow supports a judeo-christian theology is a dead-end idea. There's no motivation for religionists to advocate the theory of evolution for religious reasons.Again, if you want to use logical fallacies, make sure you know how to use them first. Take a logic class or something. Simply looking them up on the internet ain't gonna do it. When we're talking about informal logic, statements are fallacious only when they are. Not every 'no true scotsman' is a fallacy. Not every 'appeal to authority' is a fallacy. You have to look at the argument and decide on an individual basis.Added by edit.I'm not going to repeat everything Percy has already said. I think Percy has given enough evidence to link ID with creationism. Guilt by association in this case is not fallacious.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

NosyNed, we've already been down this path. Too bad the site's search engine ain't working. I'll post the link to the thread where myself versus all you guys took place on this very matter when I find the thread.Added by edit.http://EvC Forum: Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority) -->EvC Forum: Science is based on a logical fallacy - II (re: Appeal to Authority)Start at message 21 and go backward and forward from there to see our conversation.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.