Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?

Hi Org. Welcome to EvC. The following is Merriam Webster's primary definitions of religion: I see nothing in the above which defines the scientific aspects of the observation, practice and applications of intelligent design as religion. That the majority of ID advocates are religious does not make ID a religion perse.Intelligent design researchers, archeologists, scientists and cosmologists who do so for the purpose of falsifying or verifying the Biblical model are not practicing religion in the persuit of falsifying the Biblical model.For example, marine biologist Dr. Lennart Moller's expeditions to Aqaba including sophisticated underwater photography with a marine research ship came about by the Biblical reference to the location of Mt Sinai being in Arabia. That the Biblical model was what pre-empted the research does not make the research a religious practice. This can be applied to much activity going on by ID based science etc.Another example would be mathmatical probabilities and statistics, observation of the complexity of DNA, cells and the human brain etc relative to ID probabilities etc. Discussion and debate in the classroom or any other location relative to these is not practicing one's religion as per the definition of religion. Edited by Buzsaw, : typo fix

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Wherever did you get that notion?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

More precisely, howzabout religious folks, some of who study, research and work to verify/falsify the ID model relative to what is observed.Also this: Many of the "religious" insist along with their secularist non-religious friends that the ID model should be restrictively ignored in education and science with the effect of imposing the secularistic model exclusively on the students and science arena.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

We all know that ID and creationism science related papers rarely if ever get into quality peer-reviewed journals. That word quality aka majority mainline ideologically accredited, as with alternative vs conventional in healthcare etc excludes about anything nonconventional.That is not to say some (I say 'some') of mainline/conventional ID creationist science is not up to par scientifically due to the fact that a lot of YEC arguments are neither scientific or Biblical in their hypotheses.Imo, my unique Buzsaw hypotheses on origins relative to the Genesis record and scientific laws as I have put forth over the years works to correct some ot the misconceptions of conventional YEC creationists. I strive to consider both observable scientific laws relative to observable data and the literal fundamentals of the Biblical record in formulating hypotheses.So far as the science debate forums, go, if your standard for participation is quality scientific journal sanctioned, you essentially disqualify any ID creationist from the science debates. That's the dilema you must decide upon relative to EvC guidelines.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.