Replies

I’m reading a lot about Creationists and not about Intelligent Design in these reviews.

The problem is that ID has not been made a separate field, with ongoing research and a body of competing hypotheses used to make and test predictions. ID is creationism with the serial numbers filed off in an attempt to fool school boards and courts.

The evidence is there in the Wedge Strategy:

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). 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. ...
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.

When you start off with this beginning, it is no wonder that ID is not taken seriously by science. It is religion, not science.

The people that take the evolution theory side have no problem with “beings” from another planet “seeding” the Earth, but have a problem with Our Lord “seeding” it. Isn’t that strange?

You are confusing science with religion. The former requires evidence, while the latter relies on belief and revelation.

By the way, there is no credible evidence for “'beings' from another planet 'seeding' the Earth."

Maybe coyoteman can show you the “religion” in this scientist’s views netmilsmom?

He waffles when I ask him to.

Now why would that be I wonder?

from the dissentfromdarwin.org website:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

It’s curious buut whenever a scientist observes scientifically the problems with evolution, coyoteman begins to stamp and huff and scream “theocracy”.

>>When you start off with this beginning, it is no wonder that ID is not taken seriously by science. It is religion, not science.<<

So it begs the question, did the creationists become prominent in the ID definition because God was taken out of science?

Did they come to the forefront of ID because those like me were totally disregarded anyway?

>>By the way, there is no credible evidence for “’beings’ from another planet ‘seeding’ the Earth.”<<

It’s from the mouth of Dawkins.

[[The problem is that ID has not been made a separate field,]]

Yes it has Coyoteman- and you know it- You just refuse to admit it Infact many creationists have seperated themselves from ID because ID refuses to state who or what the designer might be, and instead concentrates wholly on empiracle evidence and follow the clues to find enough evidence to present a case that nature could NOT possibly have formed the complex designs witnessed in science bioligy. I’m not sure how many times this needs to be stated to you- but apparently, it’s quite a few times as you STILL seem content raising the false claim that because SOME people have OPINIONS BEYOND the ACTUAL SCIENCE of ID, then the whole system is nullified by association to the OPINIONS of SOME- As you FULL WELL KNOW Coyote- many ID proponents do NOT even beleive in God but non-the-less see the facts of bioligy for the serious problems it presents for Maceroevolution and who beleive that naturalism can NOT possibly have worked and that another explanation is NEEDED= that is ALL they beleive and make NO claims beyond hte science- Sceintsists from all walks of life and beliefs and non beliefs have foudn serious problems with naturalism, and see it for what it is- an unworkable hypothesis, and have sought a much more viable explanation.

Trying to malign the whole organization because a few people have OPINIONS abotu ID OUTSIDE of hte ACTUAL SCIENCE is a silly petty little argument tactic that SHOULD BE beneath a scientist liek yourself- but apparently blind congregationaliusts liek yourself just can’t practice objective science or mature arguments