[Tribune7]

Crackpots is crackpots, baby. We see enough of them in science.

ID is basically the claim that objective evidence (observations, probability calculations etc.) indicates that the universe (and life) is designed. How is that a crackpot idea?

[Right Wing Professor]

ID is basically the claim that objective evidence (observations, probability calculations etc.) indicates that the universe (and life) is designed. How is that a crackpot idea?

The proposition that 'design' can objectively be detected is mathematically implausible. The 'probability calculations' presented to discredit evolution are entirely and transparently specious. Moreover, according to the modern founders of the 'design' movement, ID is not as you say; ID is a pretext to get the Christian deity into academic discourse and into the classroom. Philip Johnson has explicitly said so.

[BMCDA]

ID is basically the claim that objective evidence (observations, probability calculations etc.) indicates that the universe (and life) is designed.

Uh, how do you want to detect design if you don't even have a model of the designer?