How do Intelligent Design People act?

The inspiration for this post is from a discussion I was having with Peg here: Message 31I thought the question was big enough for a topic of it's own, and also thought it took the existing thread too far off-topic.From that message: A basic explanation is as follows:ID people act in such a way that they do whatever they can to glorify the God they believe in. It is generally a USA phenomenon, but aspects of it can be found pretty much world-wide.The problems begin when they include the following as "glorifying God":
-the idea that everyone should be a Christian and there is absolutely no other "right" choice
-the idea that it's the ID'ers personal responsibility to make sure that as many people as possible become Christians in order to be included in the "right" choice
-interfering with other people's decisions in order to force other people to also "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.
-getting into positions of political power in order to create/edit laws so that they can force other people to "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.
-reaching out to as many children as possible (by even abusing schools and other public venues) in order to force other people to "glorify God" as the ID people think it should be done.The basics on "glorifying God":
-the Bible (KJV?) explains everything that ever needs to be known about life and relationships and the world (including scientific exploration)
-the science of evolution should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agree
-the science of abiogenesis should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agree
-the science of geology (including radiometric dating) should not be acknowledged because certain areas of the Bible do not literally agreeI hope that's a good start, and I hope others can add their definitions as well. Hearing from actual people who accept Intelligent Design would be greatly appreciated.Here's some things I found on the internets:1. The following is from a proponent of ID. Note that it is written in such a way as to "get you to feel sorry" for ID. It doesn't just present facts, it presents facts and tries to make you feel guilty for simply not knowing them already. This is how ID people act, they will do anything they can in order to sway as many people as possible into believing "their side" of the story. There is no regard for honesty or truth.
Teaching Intelligent Design as Religion or Science?
By William A. Dembski
(From the page: This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use)2. The following is a news article about how a Judge (who, politically speaking, should have been as close to "sympathetic" to ID as possible) rules that ID should not be allowed in Pennsylvania public schools. I think that William Dembski (the author of the paper linked above) was involved in the trial, but I'm not sure. I do know that Michael Behe (another prominent proponent of ID) was very involved in the trial and even "took the stand" at one point.
‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classesI think this should be placed in the Intelligent Design forum.

Absolutely. In fact, I would adamantly defend ID's right to be included in science classes... if it actually did any science I will argue that such a thing isn't my premise I'm just saying that's what I think ID thinks glorifying God is about. Personally, I think they don't really understand what is meant by "glorifying God", I think they're missing the point. I don't really believe anything IDers say, even about religion.Not even glorifying the Bible, you can even argue that they are merely glorifying themselves.I certainly agree that there is nothing virtuous about ID.

Very true. But, well, that's why I never mentioned anything about sincere followers...My statements are only intended to be about what they say, and I did state what I thought "problematic" IDer's ideas about "glorifying God" were.This has absolutely no bearing on sincere believers. Even sincere believers who also accept ID. Again, the problems only start if people begin to think their beliefs are so incredibly absolute, that they must begin forcing others into that belief as well.

Very true. If ID was pursued in an actually scientific method, then it would be welcomed into the scientific community.And, actually, it has been done so many, many years ago. It was found to be a dead-end with no supporting evidence. In fact, it's this dead-end that turned scientists towards the theory of evolution in the first place.The facts are that ID does not seemed to be concerned with "being scientific", they seem to be more concerned with "getting people to agree with them." Such a thing is not scientific.But you don't have to take my word for it. I gave a few links above but there are many, many more on teh internets if you'd care to poke about.Science demands correct information. There are intense methods developed to ensure that information is correct, untainted, and valuable. A basic example of this is strict definitions. Science explicitly defines everything. Energy, mass, evolution, gravity... they all have extremely precise, unconfusing defintions. ID does not have this, and they do not seem willing (in 20+ years!!) to provide any when asked. One of the most basic words to define would be "design." However, there is no definition of design in ID. It's just "I'll see it when I see it..." Well, what good does that do, scientifically?Is a rock designed?
A snowflake?
A beetle?
A cow?
A naturally forming crystal?
Sand?What if I think something's desinged but no one else does?
Does popular opinion of the moment actually define "designed?"
Is everything designed? (In which case... how can the term be scientifically useful?)The main point is that it's very, VERY obvious that ID is not science in any even relaxed definition of the term. That is why ID is not accepted by the scientific community. For the exact same reasons that astrology and my opinion on the usefulness of cottage cheese are not scientific... they don't follow the scientific rules.What should be a very simple, and easy concept to understand just plain isn't. That's why ID causes such a ruckus. It's like an average kid who wants to go to college because his big brother is there. Sure, it might be nice to have the kid follow his brother around for a day or so. But if the kid insists on continually telling the physics professors that "the moon is made of cheese!" over and over and over again... sooner or later they're going to kick the kid out of college. There is a certain point in academics where you just simply have to follow the structured rules or your input will no longer be welcomed (because it can't be trusted).IDs been disregarding the rules for 20+ years.
"Creation Science" and "Creationism" (basically what ID really is) have been disregarding the rules for almost 100 years.
It's just not acceptable. It wasn't acceptable then, it isn't acceptable now, and it's not likely that it ever will be as long as honest, rigorous discovery is the goal of science. Absolutely.And if it isn't, there's a nobel prize, millions of dollars, and world-wide fame for the rest of human history for the person who can show otherwise.
(This is the same prize for anyone who can overturn any currently held scientific standard... and, in fact, it's what every scientist dreams of finding).

If this were true, I'd agree with you.The problem is that the Christian school either:A. Wants state-recognition for the diplomas it hands out
or
B. Is supported by public tax-payer moneyEither way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class.Is such a "demand" really all that strange?
Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state?If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like.But it's irresponsible of the state to allow any school to grant diplomas to children who have been taught things in science class that are easily shown to not be science at all.Do you think Dembski and this school should be allowed to teach the "Magical Trevor's Unicorn theory of Gravity" in science because they think it's best their children learn of how unicorns push things around?No, because that's not science... and it's not science because it has no supporting evidence.ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence.No one is stopping ID from doing some real, actual science... go through the scientific procedures... and then enter into the schools (once the data, experiments, tests and conclusions can be verified, of course).But ID doesn't want to do this.
ID doesn't want to do this because they have no data, no experiments, no tests, and none of their conclusions can be verified.So why, exactly (other then the guilt trip Dembski just played on you) do you think ID should be allowed to be taught in science class?This is how ID people act. They make you feel guilty. They make you feel pity. They try to present this case that they're not being treated equally.But, in reality, they are being treated equally, they're just not doing any of the work.What if the guy who came in 2nd place at the 100m dash started walking around saying how "unfair" it was that he didn't get gold? That he should have a gold medal too because he worked just as hard... trained just as much... he's not being treated equally?
What if (more similar to the case of ID) I started saying I worked just as hard and also deserve the gold medal? After all, I'm a person too so that makes us equal. Shouldn't I be treated equally? Are you saying I'm not a person? The guy who won the 100m dash is not a person? Shouldn't we keep it fair and equal and give both of us gold medals?
...this is what ID does, and you just fell for it.It's one thing to say things "should be equal." It's another thing to show that they should be equal. ID skips the showing part, and expects people to fall for their words alone.Don't feel bad though, ID's movement has had almost 100 years to perfect their art of trapping good-hearted people like yourself.Again, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask some questions... ask the ID people about their definitions and what sort of experiments they have in mind.

For the same two reasons that all scientific theories that are taught in school are taught:Everything we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify confirms the theory.Nothing we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify negates the theory.Again, finding something against the grain for either of those things for any scientific theory (including evolution) is the stuff nobel prizes and scientific dreams are made of.It's quite possible, but when it happens we need to be sure it can be verified, and that it's honestly right. Not just because some group of folk say "hey, we want to be equal!" without showing how they're actually unequal in the first place. Because, hey, "Stile wants his gold medal too!" just doesn't cut it. What are you talking about? Who's not free to believe anything they want to? No one is stiffling any beliefs. Everyone is free to believe in ID all they want. All they are being restricted from is the ability to teach it in science class as a science.They have even been welcomed to teach their ID in schools in religious classes. How is that not fair?That's how the ID people act, they get you to think that "belief" is only possible from a science class. Does that sound right to you? Should religion be in science? It sounds like it's the ID people who are actually going against the constitution by not letting children have their right to learn the honest, scientific truth about science. It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion? If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific.If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific.If Stile walks into his front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is flat! It must be green because I had a dream last night about green dragons!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science.If ID walks into their front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is designed! It must be designed because I just plain think it is!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science. I'm glad we agree. Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this.
Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple. Of course it can. It's been shown otherwise everytime they've gone to court. It's been shown otherwise right here in this thread to you. There is no scientific ID procedures or methods, they don't exist. If you know of one, it will be the first (ever!) to be produced. Funny how Dembski and Behe have been saying they're working on this for over 20 years... and still can't even define a method? Or even the word "design?!?" How many years does it take to define the very word that describes your organization? It's ludicrous.

Those sorts of people certainly do make the best teachers.As a gerneral note, it is a difficult manner even for athiestic scientists to not let external emotions influence their work at all times.That's why we have the scientific method, and why it must be strictly adhered to. When adhered to (along with the peer review system) we are guaranteed that our personal opinions are not guiding any of the results... no matter what (religious or non-religious) those peronal opinions are.

It is abuse to teach a child a fact as a fact, in science class, when you know that it is a falsehood that does not belong there. Children trust their teachers.I really can't say it better than Coragyps: Do you disagree? Um, no. The ID "study" of nature and the "search" for design is not scientific simply because it does not follow the scientific method. It's not a particularly difficult concept. Sure they could. But if they don't follow the scientific method while doing so, then it's not going to be science. The first step would be to define the word "design" so that objects can be identified. 20+ years and they still can't even define the word they've labelled their own system with. Fantastic, it's always best to look into this sort of thing for yourself. There's no need to take anyone's word for it. Sorry, I don't know of any. My investigation has already identified ID as a waste of time, so I don't keep tabs on the books they produce. I do recommend reading through the forums here. However, I do understand if you feel this forum is somehow bias. I don't think it is, but I can understand someone else feeling differently.