“”Intelligent design” as propounded by the Discovery Institute is not about God being intelligent and designing the laws of nature accordingly. It’s about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.”
I don’t accept you as an expert on the Discovery Institute. That you accuse them of lying damages your credibility as much as those who insist that Bush stole the 2000 election, or that he lied us into war.
The Discovery Institute is several people with several views. They are not hostile to religion, to science, or to considering the two together. Beyond that, they probably hold different views on religion and on various scientific topics.
If I understand you rightly, you consider any Godly intervention, after the initial creation, as evidence for an imperfect creation. That is an opinion; one that I do not share. Why shouldn’t God respond sometimes to prayers from those who recognize him and properly seek his aid?
“”Intelligent design” as propounded by the Discovery Institute is not about God being intelligent and designing the laws of nature accordingly. It’s about God designing laws of nature that are inadequate for life to form naturally and then violating those laws selectively to create life. And then dishonestly blowing smoke about what they are really claiming.”
I don’t accept you as an expert on the Discovery Institute. That you accuse them of lying damages your credibility as much as those who insist that Bush stole the 2000 election, or that he lied us into war.
Except that Salman is correct here.
IDers do very explicitly assert that they infer "design" because "natural law" alone is, they claim, inadequate to explain the features they attribute to design. Indeed this is the very essence and central aspect of all their arguments. You can't possible read any substantial quantity of ID literature and miss this point, so who is really being dishonest here?
BTW, Salman, independently of you (after you posted but before I noticed your post) I made much the same points in #58.
I do somewhat disagree with you that ID is about "violating those laws selectively to create life". Or maybe we're saying this same thing in different ways: That this (the appeal to miracle) is what IDers want their adherents to assume, but they aren't honest enough to openly assert it. Instead IDers adamantly refuse to assert, or even hypothesize, ANYTHING about how, or when, or where design events occur. This renders ID vacuous and scientifically useless, even if the ID arguments for "inferring" the presence of "design" were correct. It's useless to "infer" the presence of something, but then refuse to say, or even allow speculation, about what that something actually is.