[karajorma]

Because that is exactly what the ID crowd want. ID is bad science. In fact it's not science at all. It makes no testable claims.


ID is simply a smokescreen to sneak creationism in through the back door. It's not science. And it's not even true creationism because it avoids saying when God actually created the universe so as to avoid breaking apart the two fundamental groups that make it up (Young Earth and Old Earth creationists).

If you want to believe in God go ahead and do it. But don't waste your time with ID. It's not science and it's not religion. After the Dover case proved it was nonsense didn't you wonder why it disappeared? It disappeared because it had failed in its purpose.

The simple fact is that a lot of people don't understand what that is and think ID is basically creationism. It isn't. Most people arguing for ID don't actually understand it. I'll ask again cause I always ask ID proponents, "What are the 3 fundamental parts of the ID theory?"

[Ghostavo]

It should be noted that evolution doesn't throw out the idea of god/gods/whatever. Afterall, most religious denominations support the idea of evolution.

[MP-Ryan]

It should be noted that evolution doesn't throw out the idea of god/gods/whatever. Afterall, most religious denominations support the idea of evolution.

This is something I perpetually try to beat into the heads of people who "don't believe" in evolution.

Evolution merely states that life has changed over time from a single common ancestor into a myriad of complex forms through natural selection.  It says nothing about how that single common ancestor came about.  The hangup point for most religious types is that they view natural selection as meaning purely random chance, which isn't accurate.  The mechanisms which allow natural selection to occur are purely random, but the selection process itself is anything but.  At any rate, that's one of the reasons for the invention of ID - so they can claim that the process of evolution has been guided.  To me, if someone says they believe in ID but not evolution that tells me they don't understand either of them.  ID is merely God in the Details (not the gaps; natural selection is a soundly explained mechanism).

That's yet another reason ID is such blarney... people can believe in a God and still believe in evolution.

[karajorma]

Exactly. There's no good reason for an Old Earth Creationist not to believe in evolution. It's only the Young Earth Creationists who actually need to have any problem with it.

A conversation with a reasonable creationist would go like this.

Him: I believe God pushed evolution in a certain direction
Me: Evolution doesn't need God to push evolution
Him: I know, but I believe he exists and he did it by doing subtle things like dropping an asteroid on the dinosaurs and setting off the Toba eruption, there's no need for him to get directly involved.
Me: Fair enough. Let's go point and laugh at YECs together then.

[redsniper]

Wasn't there even a pope who said evolution was a great theory or am I just imagining things?

[Edward Bradshaw]

There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 

Hmm... /me smells circular reasoning, perhaps.  ID isn't about proving "God did it".  It's about proving something intelligent did it... from there, we can argue about who/what, without people jumping in and saying it's all nonsense because nothing did it, or it did it itself. 

You want us not to use ID because it doesn't prove "God did it"
You want us to believe atheistic (or non-intelligent-originistic <?> ) Evolution is correct
-If you can prove the second on its own merits, the first is already pwnt.  If the first is however correct, then the ID crowd will be happy that at least you can be searching for whoever/whatever made us, instead of claiming it was a freak occurrence.

Why can't you see that according to the ID crowd, they just don't want bad science taught as fact?

Lets get this clarified...

 + The idea that the Intelligent Designer is God is inherently unscientific, so lets stop there.

 + The idea that the Intelligent Designer is aliens is NOT inherently unscientific. But it doesnt matter, the science is not there. Behes arguments for example are nonsence, really. All he does is say, look, this sure looks complicated it couldnt have come about naturally via evolution without some kind of Intelligent input. But when he is shown to be wrong, he can just move onto some other biological structure we currently have an grey area in, or he'll just says its not good enough an explanation (but we can never have 100% understanding so he can just move the goal posts). Its a pretty standard Creationist arguing style really he's just wrapped it up in a more sciencey way. He even falsely compared life to a mouse trap and actual human made machines just like Paley did centuries because him with his Watchmaker argument. Life isnt a watch or a mousetrap, if we saw mousetraps and watches in nature growing and reproducing like animals maybe we wouldnt be so quick to think they were Intelligently Designed. And as for Dembski, he writes very long papers about why evolution doesnt work mathematically because he claims "information" doesnt increase yet he, nor any Creationist, has NEVER defined information. So if you try arguing with them that information does increase, they will just move the goal posts, because they never have defined what they mean bythe words they use.

 + Theres no such thing as "atheist evolution", there is only Evolution. No science makes claims about god. If there is atheist evolution then there is "atheist gravity" or "atheist aerodynamics". Ironically, considering how much Creationists bash him, Darwin credited God as the creator when he wrote Origin of the Species but that doesnt mean it was science when he  or any scientist expresses their personel religious views. All science is therefore "atheist science", if you want to be an ass about it. 

 ++ This "bad science" IDists claim to be taught in Evolution are misrepresentations and usually dishonestly so. They want to teach bad science, not make sure good science is taught.

Him: I believe God pushed evolution in a certain direction
Me: Evolution doesn't need God to push evolution
Him: I know, but I believe he exists and he did it by doing subtle things like dropping an asteroid on the dinosaurs and setting off the Toba eruption, there's no need for him to get directly involved.
Me: Fair enough. Let's go point and laugh at YECs together then.

They exist, they are called Theistic Evolutionists, which makes up most of the people that accept Evolution.

[karajorma]

Exactly. ID proponents like to paint the picture that you must believe in God or evolution but it's a load of bollocks. There are lots of people who accept evolution as scientific fact but still believe in God. The two are most definitely not exclusive.

[Maniax]

Exactly. ID proponents like to paint the picture that you must believe in God or evolution but it's a load of bollocks. There are lots of people who accept evolution as scientific fact but still believe in God. The two are most definitely not exclusive.

Amen to that!