[js1138]

For the record, he was asked point blank if ID is an alternative to evolution, and carefully avoided saying yes.

I think this implies at least two things. He probably personally believes in ID. He thinks ID is part of the conservative movement and should be supported.

I think he's wrong on both counts, but that's just me.

I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms. We all know that, at a minimum, ID differes from "Darwinism" by insisting that random mutations plus selection are not adequate to produce new species.

That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative. I want to know what ID supporters believe, not just what they don't believe. I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses.

Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth? Do they accept the geologists explanation of the geologic column? And so forth.

[Right Wing Professor]

Philip Johnson is considered the father of the ID movement. Here's how he defines it:

Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.

Seems clear enough: ID is the 'reality of God'. The rest is obfuscation.

[PatrickHenry]

I'll add my unanswered list of questions to yours:

1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?

Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions

2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?

3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?

4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?

5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?

[PatrickHenry]

He [Bush] probably personally believes in ID. He thinks ID is part of the conservative movement and should be supported. I think he's wrong on both counts, but that's just me.

In my view, there will be three main issues in the upcoming elections: (1) the war; (2) immigration; and (3) maybe this ID/Creationism thing, but in a larger context along with stem-cell research, to fit the MSM allegation that Republicans are anti-science. The economy won't be an issue (it only is when it's bad), but maybe further tax cuts will be an issue.

I think we're doing fine on everything but immigration and the creationism issues. Immigration is by far the larger problem, but maybe the dems can't take advantage of it. So ID/creationism will be a factor. It's our bit of goofiness, like gay marriage is to the dems.

[Southack]

"I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms. We all know that, at a minimum, ID differes from "Darwinism" by insisting that random mutations plus selection are not adequate to produce new species. That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative. I want to know what ID supporters believe, not just what they don't believe. I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses. Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth? Do they accept the geologists explanation of the geologic column? And so forth."

Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, incontrovertibly explains Artificial Intelligence, GM crops, genetically modified animals (e.g. laboratory pigs that produce human hormones), computer viri, and self-replicating machines.

And while remaining in the realm of science, ID and its advocates accept the best available evidence for the age of the Earth (e.g. 13 to 17 Billion years), etc.

All of the above should be taught in science classes. Likewise, the mathematics behind elemental organization (e.g. probability math) should be taught in math classes.

It should then be left up to the students themselves to decide which theories best align with our math and science.

...However, that so many Darwinists *fear* such a level playing field speaks volumes.

[johnnyb_61820]

"I'm in the eleventh day of asking ID supporters to define themselves in positive rather than negative terms."

First of all, why? Is not criticism of a theory not in and of itself valid? Do we _have_ to hold on to invalid theories until we have an agreed upon one to take its place?

The second part is that the term ID itself is a positive term. In case you missed it, it stands for "intelligent design". It says that one or more intelligent designers designed life as we know it.

Reductionists believe that everything is reducible to physics. IDists do not believe that this is the case. It appears that you are asking for a reductionist description of ID. That would be like asking for an interpretation of quantum physics using classical mechanics.

"That is a negative statement that does not suggest any researchable alternative."

Design patterns for one. Programmability of change is another. Dembski has actually done a fair amount of research in this, with his No Free Lunch equations.

"I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses."

Basically the start being that there is more in life than physics. Agency (subheaded by creativity) qualifies as a distinct cause.

"Do ID advocates accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth?"

This is a silly question, on two points. First of all, there is no one scientific determination of anything. I can find well-published geologists that are six-day creationists. Science is not done by authority or by committee, so the idea of a single "scientific determination" of anything is simply a contradiction in terms.

Secondly, that's like asking, "do makers of thermometers accept the scientific determination of the age of the earth?" It's silly because it's irrelevant. ID is only about whether agency played a role in the design of living organisms. That's it. Obviously, the six-day creationists will be ID'ers, as well as the old-earth creationists, as well as those who think that an alien intelligence was involved, as well as those who are polytheists. I'm not quite certain if panspermiaists or pantheists would qualify.

"I want to know what they would teach as the content of science courses."

Right now, they would only add criticisms of Darwinism. In the future, as it becomes debated and more established, they would probably add the design detection concepts outlined by Dembski and others.

[Pipeline]

I see evidence of evolution all around me. The idea that random couplings of elements can become self-aware, even learn to manipulate their environment as they choose.

But isn't evolution a process observed by scientists?