Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

We put dogs down and not ourselves for offences,which is something a dog can't commit,because we can do.We have dominion over the animals silly.It's in the Bible for God's sake.

That's what a religious fundamentalist would say anyway.Scientists get all confused on the issue.

My problem with SD is artistic.SD is mechanical and ID is organic.SD is about cognition and laws of causality.ID is about inner experience and emblems like the Stars and Stripes.In ID there is an evolution toward inward fulfillment whilst SD is about "progress" like the Arctic ice melting.ID reads its idea "out of nature" and SD reads it "into" nature.Teleology.And Darwinism is just a trifle too easy to understand which may explain its attractions.

Sounds almost like youre saying something.

Right.

I know I'm a loser.I drive past graveyards.I don't pretend they aren't there.

Did you know that everything about you is dependent on the discovery of the concept of zero.
The Romans were SDers.Utility was their bag.And no zero.MXCIVIX for a tank full of gas.Had they had gas.They would never have discovered zero in the memory of man.They knew what they were talking about you see.

Zero was discovered by temple adepts intent on seeing that the Gods and Godesses,the lovely little darlings,were assuaged of their anger.IDers to the core of the marrow.Completely crackers in other words.Central locking,thermostats,digital TV,panties,flush toilets,low fat diets,holidays in exotic locations,smart bombs, etc etc all posited on a bunch of monks with a flat out ID agenda.

One would think that an intelligent person would retain a modicum of respect for ID.

I wouldn't worship any god who would want me as a worshipper.

The long-term strategy of the concept's proponents, said Robert Pennock, a Michigan State University professor of philosophy and science, is not just to get intelligent design into science class, but to change the very definition of science to include the supernatural.
Pennock said the people behind intelligent design are attacking methodological naturalism, the accepted procedures of science that limit observations and hypotheses to the natural world.
It essentially says to scientists, Pennock said, "We can't cheat."
As examples of the movement's intentions, Pennock showed the court a number of articles written by the movement's leaders, including two by William Dembski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
Discovery has been part of efforts to change wording of Kansas state education standards to be more open to the supernatural in the definition of science.
"The scientific picture of the world championed since the Enlightenment is not wrong, but massively wrong," Dembski wrote in an article titled "Building bridges between science and theology."
In another article, titled "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design," Dembski wrote, "In the words of Vladimir Lenin, What is to be done? Design theorists aren't at all bashful about answering this question: The ground rules of science have to be changed."