Your failure here is one of a logical fallacy. You assume but have not demonstrated that IDMs are religious in nature, then you run with a false premise, believing you have started correctly
Dwise1 cited the the Discovery Institute's
Wedge Document:
quote:
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".
There is also the
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, where it was clearly documented that the intelligent design book
Of Pandas and People was a thinly disguised rewrite of a creationism book.
The religious roots and nature of ID are well established.
Yes, there may well be Idist hypotheses that are independent of Biblical creationism. I cite Michael Behe's efforts in my
message 49. Behe is the rare example of an IDist who will clearly go against young Earth creationism. But in general, the Discovery Institute is doing a piss poor job of separating their IDism from Biblical creationism. Also see that message 49.
So Dawn, how does your version of ID fit into the big picture of science? Do you accept what I cited that Behe accepts? Behe considers his IDism to be part of the larger biological theory of evolution. Behe (a real biological PhD) does the best job of making ID part of science, and that's not that good of a job.
If ID "theory" is to be considered science, then it must fit into the big picture of what is considered science.
Moose
™ Version 4.2