[PatrickHenry]

When posters such as Patrick Henry, jennyp and Vade Retro dispute the scientific validity of ID, they are tilting at an apparition arising strictly from their own fevered imaginings, jousting with a creature that no proponent of ID has ever proposed. This is an absolutely classic example of straw man argumentation and, as such, consitututes proof positive that they cannot cope rationally with ID as it actually is.

I disagree. I could be wrong, but I think the ID crowd has an agenda which is very far from the discovery of scientific truth. From Dembski's words at the start of what you posted, with my own additions placed [in brackets]:

Scientific creationism is committed to two religious presuppositions and interprets the data of science to fit those presuppositions [later given as a supernatural creator and the scientific accuracy of Genesis]. Intelligent design, on the other hand, [wink, wink] has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation. [But -- wink, wink -- it is very comfortable with it, which is why creationist so often advocate ID.]

Here are Dembski's words from the end of the piece you quoted, again with my additions [in brackets]:

To be sure [but let's be careful not to emphasise this], the designer is also compatible with the Creator-God of the world's major monotheistic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But the designer is also compatible with the watchmaker-God of the deists ...

In my opinion, there are two problems with ID. First (and this one takes up too much time to go into here, but as we all know there are websites devoted to it) ID fails to make a credible case, in peer-reviewed journals, that an external designer is essential. Second, and most damning, ID is the opening wedge for the teaching of "scientific" creationism in government schools.

[f.Christian]

Western Science began as an effort to discern, understand and quantify God's design. I would further say that we have learned much from this effort.

629 posted on 8/29/02 9:05 PM Pacific by Phaedrus

[Bonaparte]

Admit it, PH. You have never even read an article, let alone a book, by any proponent of ID. You can't argue with its science, because you don't even know what its scientific arguments are, let alone what its data are. All you can do (as usual) is assign ignoble motives to it and falsely claim that ID has not been peer reviewed and published in scientific venues. It has been peer reviewed and it has been published in scientific venues. Just as one example, The Design Inference, the scholarly work par excellence in this school of thought was thoroughly and rigorously peer reviewed by a distinguished committee at Cambridge University before its approval for publication by that insitution.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[f.Christian]

No social engineering(wealth/power redistribution)---popery/EVOLUTION(liberal god/godesses)!

[f.Christian]

Patrickplasticplasterhenry...aka Galilee Galileo---

Trying to orbit science around darwin...

is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon---

HACKWARDS!

Darwin is an assteroid----klunker....

no fuel---lotta assh/slag!

Halebopps---cargo cults...govt work/well-fare!

[Bonaparte]

ID is the opening wedge for the teaching of "scientific" creationism in government schools.

Did you even read what was posted (and addressed to you, among others) in post 40? William Dembski, the leading proponetn of ID, categorically rejects "scientific creationism," agreeing with only one of its six major points of contention.

So, you tell us, PH -- how can one simultaneously repudiate a theory and advance it?