Replies

Folks like Coyoteman and others constantly bring up the fact that SOME ID scientsits are secure enough to sign statements of faith, and they try to portray ID science as some supposed ‘religious agenda’ when it’s evident that these posters here haven’t got a clue what they are talking about. ID science is the ONLY NON-RELIGIOUS scientific process around concerning biological processes.

The Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of ID nowadays, had to launder their website to remove all of the religious references that were giving their true agenda away. But, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, they couldn't hide the evidence. Here is a link to a thread that shows how their website has changed over the years in a failed effort to hide their religious motives:

The Evolution of the Discovery Institute's Website Rhetoric.

And as for "ID science is the ONLY NON-RELIGIOUS scientific process around concerning biological processes" -- that is both ridiculous and untrue.

The Wedge Strategy spills all the beans about the Discovery Institute and ID when it states, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Can you claim that is scientific and non-religious?

How about their goals?

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Can you claim those are scientific and non-religious?

I don't know whether you are deluding yourself or trying to delude us about the true nature of ID.

ID is religion start to finish, the stepchild of creation "science," still trying to sneak its nose back into the science tent.

For hte last time Coyote- since when does DI amount to the end all be all of ID science?

Now follow along Coyoteman- I’ll explain this to you and to everyone else you’re trying to pull the whool over on,:

[[Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

There is NOTHING unscientific about ANY of that- IF Macroevolution IS infact a false religion with NO scientific evidence to support it- then logically one MUST find an alternative and to soundly defeat the dogma that demands that a dead theory is a viable theory- There is absolutely NOTHING unscientific about ANY of the above- Nothing- Comprende?

[[ID is religion start to finish, the stepchild of creation “science,” still trying to sneak its nose back into the science tent.]]

That is totalt BS and anyone with an odicum of intellect knows that DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS OUTSIDE OF THE FACTS OF ID mean absolutely NOTHING to ID science itself- Again- listen up- because apparently you’re just not comprehendinging htis- DI does NOT constitute ID SCience- they are an instititute WITHIN ID science- their PERSONAL OPINIONS are just that- opinions OUTSIDE of the scope of the FACTUAL SCIENCE of ID. ID science is the ONLY non religious science regarding biology- the only one Coyote- it studies actual facts- it doesn’t entertain fanciful wishful dreams and assumptions like Macroevolutionists do- So lower your nose a bit and you might just understand that- until then- I suppose I’ll have to keep repeating it everytime you post DI’s PERSONAL OPINIONS as though they are the opinions of every scientist in ID when infact they are NOT. There also is NOTHING inconsistent or anti-science about their goals- You seem to be under the delusion that the only viable science is one of naturalism- yet incredibly, naturalism is more a religion than any other branch of science- yet- amazingly, you accept that religion hook line and sinker, yet can’t allow any other hypothesis? You call yourself an objective scientist? Lol-