Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

his "pardon me" wasnt even the point he made that was incoherent.

BTW, I thought he was some kid . Turns out hes older than me.

That is a good question and one that I've been researching for awhile now. I have a few ideas/conclusions about why that is but not ready to quantify it.

The way it presents symptomatically is for the anti ID party to suddenly divert the argument into a charge of ID being nothing more that 'religion in disguise wearing a lab coat' or just a plot to proselytize children in school, a la 'creationist education'.

But thank you for not tossing all pro ID advocates in the same pot with religious zealots. I do happen to be a 'theist' but I make an effort to keep theism out of the argument for ID.

Leadfoot quote:

Is it really that hard to see that I meant' intra organism(or intra bacterial)' rather than 'intra cellular' in that quote? What context did you think "bacteria were first" and "long before eukaryotic cells" was in? Not to mention that the YouTube video that the discussion started with was all about inter/intra bacterial communication.

And Farmerman (king of the typo) bitching about incoherent?? If I ever have to sink to using a typo/misplaced term to make points, I'll just give this up...

Well, it is the case that ID, particularly as it has arisen and been promoted in the US, is as a purposefully disguised PR campaign out of the fundamentalist christian community. Farmerman and Setanta are correct in their statements about this history. That doesn't necessarily mean that you personally are a product of this campaign but that campaign is real and it has been the driving force behind home school curricula, etc. This stuff is well documented.

Interestingly enough, the published PR by the spokesmen of the ID movement, profess loudly that they are "scientists" and NOT followers of the "Theistic Evolution" movement,(or what the NCSE calls the "Slow Creation " movement).

To the extent that farmerman is correct about that history I have no problem with. But as I told him early on, I have no interest in defending any use or misuse that fundamentalists have made of the concept of ID. Just because Hitler misused the concepts behind genetics did not invalidate the concepts themselves.

Either people are willing to argue the point or they are not. But dragging in the history of religious movements is only a diversion.

Well, they would say that. They don't have many moves left. I confess I haven't followed what Johnston and Behe and those doofi have been up to for quite a few years now but I expect their personal bank accounts are evolving nicely.

But this isn't the history of a "religious movement". It's the history, in the US, of the concept of intelligent design. And that history involves, top to bottom, religious voices trying to wage a campaign to rid the nation of nasty Darwinism.

But let's presume you are unaffected by this literature. Tell me where you first bumped into the theory of intelligent design and what information sources you found convincing.

What hitler did has nothing to do with ID.

He certainly "presents" as someone immature. He also continues to assert that people who do not accept the "intelligent design" crapola are somehow "diverting" the discussion when they mention religion. How many times does one need to point out that the question of this thread is whether "intelligent design" is science or religion. His fundamental dishonesty mirrors the fundamental dishonesty of those who are attempting to the camel's nose into the tent by touting "intelligent design" while denying that they are talking about creationism. Howe the hell do you get "designed" organisms without an act of creation? Like all of his crowd, he sedulously avoids specifying the designer.

This would all be hilarious if it were not so pathetic. Attempting to claim that life were "designed" is an appeal to a supernatural cause. Period! I consider it dishonest not to acknowledge the religious provenance of such a claim.

I hold with Woody. "If there is one, he's basically an under-achiever."

It is. Whether from the Stoics or Aquinas or Behe, there is an underlying need to prop up the hope for intentionality behind this universe we find ourselves inhabiting.

Some notables have come to an ID default position based entirely upon a "mind game". This is no different than the same beliefs that are expressed on the TV Series entitled "ANCIENT ALIENS".
The alienistas conclude "going in" that aliens ere the source of everything that pretty much defines civilization , architecture, and technology. WHY?---because the aliens guys dont want inform themselves of details of pre-history that actually disagree with thwir "aliens did it" worldview.
For example, they assign alien intervention in the building of mega artifacts like the pyramids. They dont take the time to learn that these structures have a long , recordable (and datable) history of aborted "first attempts" and incorporation of these lessons learned into subsequent structures.
This same mentality abides within the ID folks's worldviews.
Just as the "aliens did it" folks have no real convincing counter evidence, neither do the ID schools of "thought".
They go from "god did it" to "we better not say that god did it out ;loud", to "no god did it but we better search around for evidence that supports this preconceived notion" (That is the present derived position of the Discovery Institute-after having gone through a systematic PURGING of all things religious from their "Office" for the Advancement of Science and Culture)

Where our friend frequently goes off track is his unwillingness to actually look at some of the evidence regarding the origins of life on the planet. He has some beliefs that he wishes to share but has , after presenting his beliefs avoided follow-on discussions with me and others. Hes been pretty specific to say" I dont want to listen to your stories "(assuming that I made em up), and he specifically does NOT wish to acknowledge or know about the history of the modern ID movement.Its as if all this were somehow a bit of blasphemy.

It would be a lot easier to take if it weren't for someone like lead-head who gets so snotty and rude about the intelligence of others. As the old-time New Yorkers were wont to say, "Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining."

That's pretty damend funny, because i had been tempted to ask him if he thought the "intelligent designer(s)" were Eatees. The ancient aliens fanatics assume our ancestors were too stupid to act on their own behalf. The joker we're dealing with here seems to assume that we are too stupid to figure this out.

Lots of times the "You have minimal skills and outdated beliefs" arguments are merely defense positions. When pushed too hard ,they will change the subject as Pb did with you yesterday.

got me there. Whats an Eatee?

Extra-terrestrial, ET, Eatee.

Ok, got it. I need some coffee Im still half asleep.