OK, fair enough. Lets discuss these points.
From what I have seen on the web and on these threads, ID is a spin-off from CS, and was only invented following the Supreme Court case of the late 1980s. This led to The Wedge Strategy of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (as if science needed renewal).
The testimony in the Dover case has done nothing to change my opinion. I have been following the case and reading the testimony. These are some of my favorite quotes, from the plaintiff's closing statement:
Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth at their depositions, and they have not told the truth in this courtroom. They are not telling the truth when they assert that only Intelligent Design, and not creationism were discussed at the June 2004 board meetings. They are not telling the truth when they place the "2000 years ago" statement at the meeting discussing the pledge rather than the June 14, 2004 meeting discussing the biology textbook. The did not tell the truth in their depositions, or for that matter to the citizens of Dover, about how the donation of the Pandas books came about. (p. 5)I hope you agree that I am doing more than just "waving my arms at strawmen."This board did not act to improve science education. It took one area of the science curriculum that has historically been the object of religiously motivated opposition, and they molded it to their particular religious viewpoint. You heard five board members testify in this court. (p. 17)
Your Honor, you may remember Cyndi Sneath's testimony about her seven year old son Griffin, who is fascinated by science. This board is telling Griffin that scientists are just tricking you. It's telling students like Griffin the same thing Mr. Buckingham told Max Pell. Don't go off to college where you will be " brainwashed." Don't research the theory of evolution. The board is delivering Michael Behe's message. Don't bother studying the development of the immune system - you're just doomed to failure. In science class, they are promoting the unchanging certainty of religion in place of the adventure of open ended scientific discovery that Jack Haught described. (p. 17)
What did you think of the testimony of your side in the Dover case?
"Your Honor, you may remember Cyndi Sneath's testimony about her seven year old son Griffin, who is fascinated by science. This board is telling Griffin that scientists are just tricking you. It's telling students like Griffin the same thing Mr. Buckingham told Max Pell. Don't go off to college where you will be " brainwashed." Don't research the theory of evolution. The board is delivering Michael Behe's message. Don't bother studying the development of the immune system - you're just doomed to failure."
This is extremely absurd, given what ID purports to do.
How many people have _not_ gone into science because scientists use it to advertise a secular worldview? ID is the opportunity for people who _do_ dissent with Darwin to get into science. Previously, it was mostly like "you don't like Darwin? You don't belong in science."
As for research into the theory of evolution, what they don't tell you is that the scientists supporting ID _have_ researched evolution, and they think it should be continued to be researched. What the evolutionists are saying is that this is a closed case, and that it is invalid to attempt to open the case back up. Now THAT is anti-science.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. As such, it would be wrong to make a sweeping generalization about what ID is supposed to be about. Not that that has stopped you from doing so now and in the past.
I hope you agree that I am doing more than just "waving my arms at strawmen."
Sorry, but you're not doing much more than waving your arms. People like Behe and Dembski raise some very interesting scientific questions that you seem bound and determined to dismiss according to your strawman.