Is ID science or religion?

antievolution.org ^ | Prof. Phillip E. Johnson

[Luis Gonzalez]

Prof. Johnson is considered to be the father of the Intelligent Design movement. What follows is known as The Wedge Strategy, authored by Johnson.

In the words of the recognized father of the ID movement...ID is religion.

[JamesP81]

Oh, creationists wish there were objective moral truth. But they agree (wrongly) with postmodernists that there isn't really any objective moral truth.

Fortunately for you, insanity is perfectly legal. The message of absolute moral truth is found all throughout the bible, preachers preach on it all the time, hell, even Christian rock bands sing about it (if you're interested, you can try the song 'Absolute' by Thousand Foot Krutch. They are the same style and similar skill as POD, which is also a Christian band, unbeknowest to many).

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Is ID science or religion?

No, it's neither. But it is long-winded.

[connectthedots]

What doesn't make any sense, is the idea of religion entering the scientific arena in order to promote the notion of an unknown power greater than ourselves being the creator/designer of everything.

Christianity is not separate from 'truth'. Christians are just as capable of being excellent scientists as anyone. Evolutionists are closed minded when they reject out-of-hand any consideration of the existence of God.

So, if you believe in Creation, you cannot possibly believe in ID because they are absolutely incompatible; ID denies the God of the Bible by suggesting that the source of Creation is an unknown force.

ID does not take a position as to the identity of the 'unknown force'. Creationists do. Personally, I do wonder how an IDer can maintain that the 'unknown force' is something other than God; and, specifically, God of the Bible. But then, I am a Christian. I could see why someone of a different religion might think it to be some other 'god'.

If you believe in Biblical Creationism, then you KNOW that force; it isn't unknown.

That would certainly be true for me. Please keep in mind that the God I believe in is not afraid of the truth; and neither am I. There are simply too many holes and gaps in evolution to consider it to be true on the macro level.

[DoughtyOne]

[PatrickHenry]

I usually don't ping for pure creationism, but ...

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 340 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[The Red Zone]

Philosophy.

[KeepUSfree]

"just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade"

"Solid science" does not contain ANY need to "persuade". Science is "prove" or "not prove".

The need to "persuade" is clearly the realm of philosophy or religion - NOT science.

One of the first paragraphs of their own document tells you, up front, that this is not science. That is the one fact ID'ers produce that is believable.

[shuckmaster]

ID certainly isn't science and I really don't think it's religion either (even though the religious community seems to be particularly susceptible to being suckered in by it). It's more or less a charlatan hoax perpetuated by agenda driven people who want to destroy or at least seriously diminish our nations advancements in science education.

[Physicist]

Why some people are obsessed with Discovery Institute is interesting in itself.

Because the Discovery Institute has become the long pole in the tent of creationism. The DI is to creationism as the Democratic Party is to liberalism in the United States.

If creationists don't like that, they should remove the DI from the position of authority within their movement.

[shuckmaster]

if you believe in Creation, you cannot possibly believe in ID because they are absolutely incompatible; ID denies the God of the Bible by suggesting that the source of Creation is an unknown force.

You're arguing with someone who is incapable of connecting the dots...

[shuckmaster]

revealing mechanisms that require intelligent impetuous to explain

No, they're not!

[WestVirginiaRebel]

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Is that anything like a Wedgie-which is what these cretins should all get?

[Oztrich Boy]

They obviously recognize the need for solid science

Except the bit where they decide on the conclusion before planning and doing the science

"Sentence first--verdict afterwards"

[CobaltBlue]

ID is not science, never was and never will be.

Oh, pshaw! Next you'll be telling us that magic isn't science! ;^)

[CobaltBlue]

I wonder why that "new money" seems to be spent on public relations rather than research?

[CobaltBlue]

So, you'd be in favor of giving equal time to the promotion of evolution during religious services?

LOL, but I fear you're giving them ammunition for the argument that evolution "is a religion." ;^)

[CobaltBlue]

He wouldn't need to deal from the bottom of the deck, BECAUSE HE STACKED THE DECK TO START WITH!!!

Good explanation. My own is what I call the "Minnesota Fats theory." If you recall, Minnesota Fats was the best billiards player who ever lived.

After the balls were racked, one good hit with the cue ball and those balls went flying all over the pool table exactly where he wanted them to go.

At any rate, different ways of saying the same thing. God doesn't need to tweak things since he set them up right the first time.

I think we Catholics like this way of looking at it because it's less deterministic, which gives more room for free will.

[doc30]

Just as this article describes, they want to place ID as the locus of all of science. Welcome to the Dark Ages, folks.

[ml1954]

Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.

Looks like they've hit the wall in Phase I.