How can you possibly say that? I've posted their own statements, their own documents, that conclusively show their agenda is not science, but to bring more people to Christianity.
Secondly, many great scientists also believed
There's your problem, "believe." As I showed, Darwin believed too, but he did not try to put forth is belief as science.
Thirdly, the “agenda” of the Discovery Institute is completely independent of the reality of the existence or non-existence of ID.
They founded the modern ID movement. They and their members publish almost all ID books and papers. ID is defined by them.
The difference between you and Hoyle is that Hoyle has thought about the problem
Hoyle thought life came from outer space. Where did that outer space life come from? He just moves the problem of origins one step back.
“Hoyle thought life came from outer space. Where did that outer space life come from? He just moves the problem of origins one step back.”
I agree with you there, but the point is that he looked to space for the origin of life because he realized that it couldn’t have happened by random chance on earth.
If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.
What you need to realize about Hoyle, however, is even though he thought life originated in space, he still insisted that it couldn’t have come about by random chance. In other words, he didn’t think that pushing the origin of life into space would “improve the odds” of a random origin enough to make it even remotely likely. He believed — and demonstrated through basic mathematical reasoning — that the origin of life required ID.
As for the Discovery Institute, if they believe that life was intelligently designed, it is perfectly legitimate for them to promote that view regardless of what their ultimate agenda might be.
Suppose I was a doctor who believed that smoking causes lung and heart disease. If my ultimate “agenda” is to stop people from smoking, does that agenda taint my “theory” about the effects of smoking? According to your “reasoning,” the tobacco companies could legitimately dismiss the “theory” about the harmful effects of smoking because the doctors who are promoting it have an “agenda.” Nonsense.
Oh wait, suppose some of those doctors who promote the idea that smoking is dangerous do not explicitly announce that they want people to quit smoking. Are they dishonestly “hiding” their agenda? Yeah, right.