Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

The type of ID you are proposing is clearly different from the colloquial form of ID, so why not just give it a new name like Leadfoot-ID or Logically Inferred Intelligence Foundation (LIIF) or something. Then we can get away from this side argument about what “ID” is and get back to addressing the actual point you are trying to make.

I never "UNTANGLED" George La MAitre's vocation as a clergy, who was a scientist. What an individual scientist does while under vocational orders is kinda immaterial to their discoveries.Weve discussed Fr La Maitre in pages after pages herein and a guy named Spendius also tried to make a baseless argument that ID was actually a fact because of the Fr's work on the Big Bang. You tell me HOW does his work support a religious worldview?? BB has been evidenced quite nicely with overlapping field s of evidence and at least 3 Nobel Prizes with multiple honorees. LA Maitre was often interviewed and he stated emphatically that he went into his science agnostically because , I imagine, hed have no place to hang his religious hat with the exception that the universe came into existence as a point.
The Catholic Church has a Vatican Observatory and has been studying the cosmos since the 1800's. So you think theyre Looking for Godot?

Here was your exact post to which I replied and said it was kinda unhinged WHY?

1 Noone denied (ultimately) that Fr La Maitre's proposal and his later theory was not "bogus" .Science doesnt work like that (The only ones Ive seen actually accept something from the author separate from whether his contribution is ridiculous or not is the Creation/ID crowd.

2 Science has made the comments about the value of all the authors . Ive been consistent in my negative comments on pieces of work by the likes of Shapiro, Lyell, Gould, Eldredge, Coyne, Lewontin, Dawkins, Ken Miller ,Mike Behe etc.
We should always look qt what has been done not only who said it.(Noone is keeping you from agreeing or disagreeing with evidence no matter who discovers it)

THATS why Ive told you that you guys havent yet presented anything that comes close to being evidence.You seem to do a whole lot of authority pledging . Your latest pledge to authority is someone Im not planning to read unless you state where I should be focusing about his criticism of a world without ID.

My request that you read Hazens paper about co-evolution has only to do with the rise of complex chemicals starting with the "Great Oxidation event" . His papaer, loaded with vidence on its own, discusses the co-dependancy of the chemical, mineralogical and the biological.

I'd be happy to call it something else. Logically Inferred Intelligence would be fine (I don't have a foundation). But I fear as soon as I cited any argument similar to those made by the Discovery Institute, farmer et al would be quick to discredit it on that association alone. I've already been accused of being a shill for them.

But great, call it LII for all I care, if that allows a rational discussion of it.

Dont talk dumb. CI is ntitled to his opinions. I agree with many and disagree with many. This is one with which I disagree.
If a case involving infractions to our Constitution is brought up for adjudication (THROUGH THE SYSTEM FROM LOWER TO HIGHER COURT), should it be IGNORED and let the one side fold its tents??
Tht aint the way our system works.

What was being adjudicated was whether Freedom of (and from) religion was just an empty phrase, or something that should be defended. BOTH SIDES FELT THEY HAD RIGHT ON THEIR SIDE. Youre just whining cause your selected side got drubbed in every single case since Dqyton Tennessee.
I get tired of repeating this tuff to obviou deniers like you, but remember, the laws governing the public school sciences in the early 20th century were based upon Biblical Inerrancy. EVOLUTION WAS A HERESY , and to teach it, (hqd this been an earlier century) exposed you to fines and even prison. Ive said this over and over, One of my hobbies has been to collect and use in the class, the old textbooks in sciences that were used in chools bacl in the last two centuries. The books were primarily Fundamentalist, Racist, Information limited and just fuckin WRONG.
NOW, if you wanna go back to that world in educational thinking, be my guest. Go join the Snake Handler sects or the Beach Amish or Lubovitzer Jews. Be my guest. There are many home schooled kids whose parents took their kids away from public schools because they eschewed "Modernist thinking". I prefer to be part of the wave of new findings and honest discussion and experiment to see what sticks to the wall. Apparently you do not. (I really care little about what ID can do to science, Ive just been hammering to you guys that if you believe as hard as you do, try to cobble up some evidence to challenge truly natural selection and rndom mutation, or even working out some kind of evidence that the planet had to be "engineered by an unknowable intelligence"
We have no where to even begin a discussion as it stands now. I can pretty much quote from where and when sciance has derived its present stqnce on creation and subsequent evolution . All I here from you and BJ is"It evident that this is all a designed bar code"

I think you threw an unintended double negative there but never mind, I get your point.

I assume you know that Einstein told La Maitre that "Your physics is Abomidable" when La Maitre first approached him with the theory. He only came around when Hubble found the math and evidence to support it.

So why are you so unwilling to let this (ID/LII) theory play out?

We're not in court here, this is just a bunch of guys (girls welcome too) debating on the internet. And I'm not talking about teaching ID in school (which is what your beloved court case was about).

You up for debating LII as ros suggested?

The Discovery Institute, whether you know it or not (I think you do but try to deny the association), IS a religiously based alternative education organization funded by the Ahmon family to "rekindle" and renew our culture based upon Christian (Dare I say ?) beliefs .
Ive discredited what they say because evidence has debunked pretty much everything theyve come up with.
Austen has taught that the Flood is evidenced in the rocks of the Grqnd Canyon (Thats just bullshit and I wont discuss it again)
Behe hs discovered "irreducible complexity" and its been debunked over and over. It fits ID primary beliefs in "Abrupt appearance" as written about by W R Bird (another llawyer but one whose arguments are , at least, an attempt in rules of evidence). Its just that abrupt appearance, ( new clades appear only through pre engineering), has been knocked down as far as its believers have taken their argument.

DI has been on a search for real evidence since 2001 because they want dearly to drive our education system back to where it was in 1911.
Trouble is, the more ed you get , the more peepholes we see in their sails.

Nope, we would ergue about their findings. Remember, science is normally a very skeptical system of problem solving. Were still arguing about wheres the evidence for the evolution of bats??, or when did birds first appear??

If you read the Discovery Institutes own "Wedge Document" They cynically state that they are attempting to define ID by its own scientific merits. So far , its an expensive magazine subscription nd a curious web site that sounds more like Gungasnake stuff than it does actual science..
I read em "religiously" I hve not yet found anything worth discussing other than watch out for our schools and a decay of the first amendment, not by amendment, but by Supreme Court decisions from an increasingly conservative USSC

[sigh...] I guess not.

I know that the Discovery Institute is just a religious propaganda front. And I know that ID as it was proposed in court is also just a facade. But I really don’t think Leadfoot is treating his form of ID that way, and I’m willing to take him at his word that he’s not a Christian in disguise. He seems more like a deist to me. And I’m not implying that his argument may ultimately be correct, but I at the moment you are not even addressing his actual arguments. And that seems unfortunate at a number of levels.

Hes not in disguise. Hes made several outright boasts of his belief centered , then he denies em and then he goes back to his theistic base. I think he gets no pass by trying to avert attention away from the basic point of "having no evidence that underpins his assertions".
I have no expressed responsibilities to dig for evidence for his belief system.
He states that you cannot adjudicate science in a courtroom. His major error there is that ID is NOT a science as defined by standard rules of evidence. 2 USSC decisions nd 2 District court decisions affirm

Try to avoid the passive aggressive attitude and lets talk. Assume you want to influence my thinking by your ID belief, Ill do likewise.

His position is belief centered, but it does not appear to be a Christian belief, as are most common ID arguments. His appear to be more Deistic. And probably rooted in these personal experiences he has described.

Perhaps none of that matters and his arguments will fall apart down at the philosophical level anyway. But you seem interested in debating him anyway and I hate to see you spend energy beating the old ID horse into the ground since it's been dead a very long time already.

Ultimately I see Leadfoot as a rare opportunity to have an actual discussion with someone from the "ID" side of the who isn't a complete lunatic. We've seen dozens, perhaps hundreds of people who promote the idea of ID in its classic form, and they can barely construct a coherent thought much less follow a logical counter argument. Despite the fact that I disagree with his conclusions, we are lucky to have Leadfoot here representing the non-scientific side of the argument.

Anyway, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to debate. I just thought I saw a misunderstanding of positions happening and wanted to help clear it up. Carry on.

yo, no i do agree, he is approachable on other subjects. My only problem in the ID field is that we never hear a definition of how that intelligence can be cornered or be tested .

Im a bit impatient with all the ID flavors. The proponents seem (to me) to be dancing around trying to assure me that theres no G... up their sleeves . I dont see you in a different light because youre seemingly insistant to BEGIN your discussions about ID with the assumption that it is already accepted.
"The moon is made of green cheese, OK?" "Now lets look at the possible flavors"

I understand. Maybe ask that question directly then? Maybe the answer to that question will lead in a direction which isn't quite so well worn already. I don't know.

Leadfoot said something in the Evolution/Religious nonsense thread which may have gone unnoticed, but clearly differentiates his position from the usual one we run into:

That statement leads down into into a rabbit warren of subtle philosophical arguments, so much so that it's not even clear where to start.

ID parades itself as both science and religion, but it's neither. It's decadent, anachronistic religion and blind science and is useful only to 5 year olds on both accounts. It's what you get when religion fails to evolve.