But Intelligent Design invokes an "Intelligent Designer". If this "Intelligent Designer" is not God, what else could it be? Even if such an entity is not the God of the Bible or any other of our human Gods, is it not inherently religious because it invokes a God-like creator, one that not only created our Earth, but our entire universe?
Here is my take on it: Intelligent Design does not presuppose a god, rather it supposes an intelligence, a cognizance, a sentience. That does not, in any way, suppose ANY particular religion, least of all, the Judeo-Christian God.
And to solidify that notion, there are deists that would strongly object to the assertion of inherent religion. Religion is theology. And it has nothing to immediately do with science. It can entail a Spinoza's God or Albert Einstein's God, who indifferently exists apart of the creation with no sense of personal revelation.
ID also includes Direct Panspermia, which does not suppose ANY God whatsoever.
While it may be true that many, if not most creationists latched on to the idea if ID, one does not necessitate the other. And I, for one, shouldn't be made to apologize for it.
Put it this way: Supposing a God does exist who is responsible for the First Cause, are we supposed to pretend their is no design when there very well could be? I should hope not.
So here is the problem that I see: This systematic suppression of ID is nothing less than coercion. But if you think not, then I am curious to hear why it is you and so many others feel threatened by it. Why does ID threaten?
â€œFirst dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godlessâ€ -Arthur Guiterman