Replies

My point is, the theory does not specify. Any attempt to insert god into the theory is only unscientific speculation.

Intelligent design claims that there is an intelligent designer but makes no attempt to identify it? Even evolution attempts to explain the origin of life down to the very beginning. But apparently ID isn't interested? It's kind of hard to take them seriously if they ignore the central part of their theory, isn't it?

"Intelligent design claims that there is an intelligent designer but makes no attempt to identify it?"

Correct.

"Even evolution attempts to explain the origin of life down to the very beginning."

Also correct. However, the method by which life first occurred on earth is unimportant, only that life changed once it got here.

"But apparently ID isn't interested?"

Proponents of ID avoid identifying the intelligent designer(god or otherwise) as a way of keeping it scientifically acceptable:

"ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message."

- Phillip Johnson, co-founder of the Discovery Institute.

Intelligent design claims that there is an intelligent designer but makes no attempt to identify it? . . . It's kind of hard to take them seriously if they ignore the central part of their theory, isn't it?

What's particularly fascinating about the ID movement is the apparently firm belief that there are two discrete and entirely isolated audiences for the ID proposition, and that these two audiences can be freely sold a completely separate bill of goods without fear that this patently juvenile duplicity will be uncovered.

Thus, you have a "science" audience told that the Intelligent Designer is unspecified. Could be God. Could be aliens. Could be satan and satan's little helpers.

And then you have the "fundamentalist" audience, who is told right up front and without equivocation that the Intelligent Designer is not just God, but the Christian God of the New Testament.

For example, Phillip Johnson unambiguously states that the biblical basis for ID is John 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

And Dembski, following suit, states in a 1999 article for the Christian magazine Touchstone that John 1 is undeniably the Biblical basis for ID: "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

And in Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, Dembski's 1999 book, he explains that "divine Logos" is God’s own language, "the Word that in Christ was made flesh," and "God speaks the divine Logos to create the world."

It's such a bizarre and blatantly obvious bit of fraud that I am at a loss to explain its persistence.

Even evolution attempts to explain the origin of life down to the very beginning.

lmao at this ridiculous lie. Evolution has NEVER identified this first life form, nor does it care to, because it cannot. Furthermore, the prevailing opinion amongst the evo posters here is that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is based on a single common ancestor that will NOT be identified. It doesn't matter what the first life form was, just that it's successive generations continually added information as it evolved into the millions of distinct life forms we see today. Evolution science continues to pretend that the coming into existence of the first life form is irrelevant to the theory.

Evolution does NOT EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE DOWN TO THE BEGINING. It only portends to explain all the life forms coming into existence AFTER the first (NEVER HAS/NOR TO BE IDENTIFIED) life form. Mathematics has nothing to do with evolution either. Hence the reason for this entire argument in the first place.