Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Scientists from Japan, India, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere are licking their chops in the hopes that creationists dumb down science education in the US to the point that they can swoop in and take all the jobs in science, math, and technology.

Whats pathetic is that you are clueless. An you wish to have me believe that you are educated?

Hows that workin for you?

Good for you! Congratulations! Keep fight he good fight.

Scientists from Japan, India, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere are licking their chops in the hopes that creationists dumb down science education in the US to the point that they can swoop in and take all the jobs in science, math, and technology.

Cornholiomath's intellect aside, the strategy used by the disciples of creationist/ID is to respond ad nauseum with "show me the evidence". It reminds me of the interview Dawkins conducted with Wendy Wright. He must have asked her a dozen times why she wouldn't go look at the evidence he was referring her to. But as we know, this issue is not about the evidence for the creationist/IDers. This is theological/philosophical/political issues for these folks. They couldn't care less if our children grow up scientifically illiterate.

You have pointed at a fact that is presented here almost continuosly.

There have been some really good "scholars" of Creation/ID, Quahog just aint one of em.

Some of these biologists are now exploring what they call "post-Darwinian" models of evolution, often adopting the same critiques of Darwinism that ID proponents offer. They still seek unguided material evolutionary explanations of life and are resistant to design. But that resistance is weakening. Indeed, widespread fears about aiding intelligent design show that many biologists understand how ENCODE's results represent a major breakthrough for ID. As William Dembski eloquently put it some 14 years pre-ENCODE:

"Design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. ... Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it."

The really 'pure' Darwinians insist that only 3 to 5% of DNA is useful and the rest is junk.

Thats the neat thing about science, it doesnt stand still

Didja ever notice that when quahog wants to demean saomeone who's obviously male he uses female pronouns and slighting terms(girly) for women? Which Indicts him as a sexist pig.

Now you stop pretending that all Darwinians hold the same view and switch to the new paradigm simultaneously. I was just recently reading a Darwinist criticism of the ENCODE project's conclusion that most of DNA was functional. I'll see if I can dig it up.

But in any case, I guess the Darwinists will have to give up the argument that junk DNA is proof that there was no intelligent designer.

I think the last believer in the 'steady state universe' only recently let go of that view in spite of Hubble killing that myth almost 100 years ago.