I don't think that anyone has yet committed such a novel thing, but let's run with it for a moment.
I would also point out that just because two things are always present together does not mean those two things are logical reducible to the same thing (although it might turn out that they are identical, this is not a logical NECESSITY).
Great. And when you catch me arguing such a thing, I've no doubt you'll be right there to point it out. In the mean time, which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?
But not all agree as to the nature of the designer...
LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room? No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.
You are guilty of the very thing you accuse the theists of.
I've accused no one of anything. Thus far, I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship, that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.
Intelligent Design proper, and Theology proper.
LOL. All evidence to the contrary. Shall we conduct a survey, and gauge the mood of the room?
Not so fast with the LOL. Truth is not determined by majority vote. It makes no difference whether 90% of ID'sts agree with me or NO ID'sts agree with me in order for ID to be a separate category.
The category distinction exists regardless of how many agree or do NOT agree with me as to the nature of the designer.
BUT...since you asked, not all intelligent Design folks agree with my concept of an infinite, all-powerful, all knowing, personal God. Some believe tha designer is not all powerful (Harold Kushner), others believe the designer is not all knowing (open theists), some believe the designer is not eternal--and confuse exactly what is eternal and what is designed--(Mormons), some believe that the designer (or "unmoved mover") is not someone to be worshipped (Aristotle).
No, as amusing as it is to watch you contort yourself to deny the obvious, it's rather clear that the nature of the designer is basically a settled question within the ID community.
Again, that's a red herring. The argument is whether the concept of intelligent design is necessarily logically reducible to Theolology, and whether any relationship between the two disqualifies one from being a legitimate field of scientific investigation.
Many people worship what they believe to be the Intelligent Designer.
But this makes ID no less scientific.
Many people worship rocks, but that hardly disqualifies geology as a science.
I have merely pointed out that the correlation between ID theory and identification of the designer as the Christian god is very nearly a one-to-one relationship
How does that square with...
...which two things do you imagine I have said are one and the same, as a matter of logical necessity?
Either you are implying the two categories are, strictly speaking, logically reducible to the same thing or you are not. which is it?
that the set of ID theorists and the set of ID theorists who identify the designer as the god of the Bible are quite close to being the same set. I'm not at all sure how you make that into an accusation - it seems to me to be a statement of fact, and a fairly obvious fact at that.
Not an obvious fact at all. Muslims believe in ID, but don't believe in the God of the Bible.
But even if it were true that all people who believed in ID also believed in the God of the Bible, what's the significance?
If all people who believed in geology also happened to be the same people who worship rocks (and there really ARE people who worship rocks) would that by definition discount geology as a legit science?
Hmmm. This seems to be a case of the Genetic fallacy.
It also would seem to reduce geology to religion (there's that collapsing category again).
Watch out for that fallacy from concomitant relations (look it up).
BTW, you never did answer the knife cutting both ways.
Most (if not all) of the materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing that I know are evolutionists.
Does this convert to "all evolutionists are materialistic-atheists-who-believe-the-universe-came-into-being-from-nothing "?
No. But even if it were true, how does the unobservable, untestable, unverifiable "universe coming into existence from nothing" belief (a belief requiring faith, no less) qualify as science anymore than theology?
The atheists who believe in evolution have a worldview that requires more faith than my faith in God, yet this does not undermine evolution as science in your opinion.
OTOH, you believe that ID is undermined by the fact that most of them may have faith in their designer. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
1) I do not think that evolutionism and atheism are synonyms, but that the basic implicit assumption of evolution as naturalistic is antithetical to theism. One can believe in God and believe in "theistic evolution", but such a belief is severely mistaken, imho.
The very definition of evolution pushed to it's logical conclusion seems to lead practically to atheism (the practical absence of God or his "design" in any of the universe).
Also, I believe that ID has obvious implications regarding a designer when pushed to the logical conclusion.
Respectfully, I would not go so far as Alamo-Girl in divorcing ID from any theological implications (nor do I believe we have to or should!), but this does not make ID unscientific for reasons already established, so we must avoid the fallacy from concomitant relations, the genetic fallacy and the like.