[pby]

Wasn't/Isn't the ID movement used as a "wedge" to promote the idea that due to the observeable complexity of even the simplest forms of life, the simplest cells, simple cell structure, DNA, information theory and etc., it is evidenced that there is an intelligent designer and not just a natural process?

Like, when one looks at a sculpture one can realize the existence of the sculptor. At that point of realization, you may not know the sculptor's identity, but you know that one exists.

I thought that ID was a middle point moving folks away from the dogma of the philosophy of a godless naturalistic evolution, not a stopping point. Once folks realize that the evidence points to an ID, then the identity of the ID can be sought.

I don't think that the ID movement replaces the God of the Bible with the god named "ID".

[ColdWater]

I don't think that the ID movement replaces the God of the Bible with the god named "ID".

Really? The ID movement says that the ID has pushed along the evolution of man. Not God, but the ID!

[ColdWater]

Like, when one looks at a sculpture one can realize the existence of the sculptor. At that point of realization, you may not know the sculptor's identity, but you know that one exists.

You example assumes that we do not know the identity of the sculpurer. Are you saying you don't know the identity of God therefore it is acceptable to call him the ID?

[CottShop]

[[I thought that ID was a middle point moving folks away from the dogma of the philosophy of a godless naturalistic evolution, not a stopping point. Once folks realize that the evidence points to an ID, then the identity of the ID can be sought.]]

ID science isn’t about identifying the Designer, only in providing enough evidence to show a NEED ror a Designer, and to hsow that nature is incapable of being that intelligent designer. Those with an open enough mind to admit that nature couldn’t possibly have provided the incredible IC witnessed and evidenced in nature should by all rights seek out hte ID o ntheir own beyond the science of ID, but ID science itself isn’t obligated to ‘prove who or what the designer is’ behind hte IC, only that an intelligent designer is NEEDED- which is exactly what we find in the IC structures al laround us- just as any forensic scientist is obliged to do- prove that an act couldn’t have possibly happened naturally, and that it NEEDED an intelligent designer behind the act- When enough IC is presented, the case for the NEED for an intelligent designer is made- and natural causes are ruled out because nature couldn’t possibly have doen hte acts- they are beyond the capabilities of nature, and infact violate several key scientific principles which can’t be ignored and swept under the rug as though non essential to the argument