[Filo]

That's exactly what it is, in technical terms. Anyone can read the leading works like Dembski's The Design Inference to see this is bluntly the case. People need to understand that opposition to ID is literally a denial of the existence of engineers and factories. And there are plenty of in-context quotes from Darwinian fundamentalists that, applied consistently, prove this.

Abject nonsense.

ID is nothing short of religious doctrine masquerading as science. There is absolutely no science behind it and there is nothing "intelligent" about it.

Someday some rogue scientist is going to engineer a pathogen and release it. And the NAS and other evolutionary fundamentalist organizations are going to quickly declare that it is illegitimate to believe the organism was modified by an UNKNOWN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, because that would be "religion." At least, that would be the case if they are consistent.

Nope. If someone did do that it would be recognized as such fairly quickly.

That's the joy of the consistency of science. It would recognize the scenario above while it rejects the stupidity of ID.

[Liberty1970]

Notice that there is no reasoning in your response. Just the usual empty dogmas. So it’s true, you don’t believe in the existence of factories and engineers.

[kc8ukw]

I think Mount Rushmore is a good example. When you see it, you know instantly that it was designed, and is not the result of natural forces. How do you know that? What are you detecting? Do you think you could design a computer program that could sift through photographs and pick out which ones were the result of design? You can see how you might be able to start down the road to actually being quantitative.