[rob777]

"There is no scientific method in ID. It is simply an attempt to replace science in the classroom with religious dogma."


You are confusing ID with Creationism. They are not the same thing. ID has its roots in philosophical observation and goes back to Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle. It was called "design inference". Medieval Catholic scholars picked it up partly because it did not contradict what the Bible taught and because assuming that the universe was a product of intelligent design would lead to more scientific enquiry than the assumption that the universe was brought about by a combination of necessity and chance. The biggest reason for accepting it was that they found Aristotle's explanation more logical and intellectually satisfying than the alternative.

In modern times there has been a move from the philosophical approach of a design inference to a scientific approach of what is called design detection. Some of this has been the result of the meeting of information theory with modern biology. The notion is that the information contained in DNA resembles a computer code. The science of design detection is not new, it has been employed in the science of forensics and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. What is new is applying this approach to understanding how our universe came into being.

[Oztrich Boy]

You are confusing ID with Creationism. They are not the same thing

Yes they are. Call them "cdesign proponentsists" - that's what they have called themselves.

[freedumb2003]

>>You are confusing ID with Creationism. They are not the same thing. ID has its roots in philosophical observation <<

That is the point — ID is philosophy, not science. Although science has borrowed a lot from philosophy (and some the other way as well), they are different domains with different rules, different expectations and with different value to Mankind.

I think that will be my last musing on the subject on this thread.

[saganite]

Sorry, there are no experiments relating to ID that confirm or even suggest the theory has scientific grounding. Merely saying so or cloaking it in the guise of philosophy will not suffice.