ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year. [1]
I personally have posted articles from at least 10 different credentialed (albeit by the university system in the United States) scientists who have raised clear arguments to the evolutionary models inaccuracy.
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".[2]
I have read papers by scientists who hope to legitimize their arguments to academia, which I regard as political correctness, but it may enable their ideas to be published to the mainstream scientists for peer review.(as in the professor who wouldn’t give a student a letter of recommendation if they didn’t acknowledge evolution. A completely LIBERAL methodology)
We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. [3]
See prior response.
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]
Unfortunately data that would support a young universe is few and far between because of the presupposition of an old universe. Many good Bible believing scientists hesitate to take a stand on this issue because some evidence does seem to present an older universe, while other evidence begs for a young universe. Good scientists will continue to gather the evidence without positing a model till they have irrefutable evidence to support it (unlike evolutionists).
ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement, which does not support ID, but does say that they are "skeptical" of Darwinism. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don't count, because they're all biased. [5]
Another repeated point, I think you guys need a new list that has more than so few points. See response #1
ID is a program for research into the science of design, nothing more. Part of our research plans are to produce coloring books for preschoolers, and to make ourselves more likeable at parties. [6]
Another repeated point. See earlier response. The data creates the model; the model does not create the data.
ID is a scientific theory for detecting purpose and teleology in nature. But don't ask us what that purpose is, because that's a religious question that's separate from ID.
Repeat again. ID is an overriding principle, which can help to focus the consideration of evidence, but not direct the conclusions. (Unlike evolution)
The Designer could be anything from God to a space alien. But the Raelians, who believe it was a space alien, are being illogical.
A majority of the serious ID scientists are Biblically literate Christians (which is the only logically, proven truthful belief to have), but then evolutionists have drug this none scientific issue into the discussion.
Off to Church, will consider the other points this evening.
The few points you have considered so far, you have answered inadequately if at all. For glaring instance:
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".[2]The text you "address" finds hypocrisy in claiming that ID is compatible with evolution while demanding that schools teach "the evidence against evolution." (Evidence which is mostly bogus and also happens to be the only intellectual content of ID.) Have you considered this?I have read papers by scientists who hope to legitimize their arguments to academia, which I regard as political correctness, but it may enable their ideas to be published to the mainstream scientists for peer review.(as in the professor who wouldn’t give a student a letter of recommendation if they didn’t acknowledge evolution. A completely LIBERAL methodology)
Let's look at another case:
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]Once again the text which you appear to address raises a hypocrisy, or at least a self-contradiction, issue. It does so not shrilly but in wickedly funny caricature.Unfortunately data that would support a young universe is few and far between because of the presupposition of an old universe. Many good Bible believing scientists hesitate to take a stand on this issue because some evidence does seem to present an older universe, while other evidence begs for a young universe. Good scientists will continue to gather the evidence without positing a model till they have irrefutable evidence to support it (unlike evolutionists).
Can you really not even see it? You certainly do not address it.
You're babblind something back for each bullet item and checking boxes. Do we have Morton's Demon here?
I'm not so sure this statement is accurate. Without a model, how would a scientist know what evidence supports it? The model directs the search for evidence.
As an example, consider cosmic inflation. Until recently the two generally accepted models were the Big Crunch and the cold dark universe. But a third possibility was recently proposed by Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth University called The Big Rip, in which the rate of inflationary acceleration increases until all matter explodes. What makes this theory scientific is the fact that the model makes specific predictions which can be tested.
From the article:
"Who knows if it is right or wrong," Caldwell said of his theory. "I think we'll find out pretty soon."
What specific, testable predictions do the proposed alternatives to evolution make? What should we expect to find if your theory is correct?