[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I still believe that the ID movement is more about backdooring a way into the Creation story versus an alternative scientifically based hypothisis. It was a Trojan Horse from all things people of faith.

That is your opinion - and sadly, there are quite a few who truly believe that evolution is the main power play for atheism as an ideology - along with all its political agenda.

IMHO, we need to lay aside all of our presuppositions and look at the intelligent design hypothesis on its merits.

For now, it simply is saying somethings are unexplainable without a Creators hand. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of science behind that.

To the contrary, the intelligent design hypothesis says "that certain features of the universe and life are best explained by intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection".

An "intelligent cause" could be either a phenomenon (such as an emergent property of self-organizing complexity or fractal intelligence) or an agent (such as God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia, etc...)

Something as simple as animals choosing their mates could be established as the "intelligent cause" for "certain features".

IOW, it doesn't matter whether the "intelligent cause" was a phenomenon or an agent. And it doesn't cover "all features" - i.e. the hypothesis is not a theory of origins, just like the theory of evolution is not a theory of origins.

[highball]

"I still believe that the ID movement is more about backdooring a way into the Creation story versus an alternative scientifically based hypothisis. It was a Trojan Horse from all things people of faith."

That is your opinion - and sadly, there are quite a few who truly believe that evolution is the main power play for atheism as an ideology - along with all its political agenda.

It's more than an opinion - it's the admitted purpose of both the Discovery Insitute, the main proponent of ID, and the school board in this case.

Conversely, I challenge you to find any scientific organizations promoting the ToE that have atheism as a stated goal.

[Virginia-American]

Something as simple as animals choosing their mates could be established as the "intelligent cause" for "certain features".

You're claiming that sexual selection is a sort of ID?!

Isn't part of intelligence planning and then doing things to make the plan come true? (Not true of intelligence meaning simply understanding something, but implicit in the intelligence of ID)

A peahen preferring showy tail feathers is just that, an instinctual preference; there's nothing akin to planning, there's no attempt to make the peacocks prettier, no design.

[joesbucks]

One other thing related to this whole debate. Several years ago I was reading a theology vs science article. I can't recall if the debate was creation vs Darwinism or one of the other issues where current knowledge collides with faith. It may have been related to the fossil record.

One of the experts from the faith issue stated someting to the effect, and since I can no longer find the citation, I'm doing it from memory which may be imperfect: We don't believe that x is true and further cannot allow it to become true among the masses for it would have far reaching implications regarding our values and culture.

That statement has troubled me for some time. We can't allow something that is true to become true?

Again, I wish I knew where and when I read it so I could reference it.