Here's why Creatards might be right

[TheRocketSurgeon]

actually its more than just one guys 'random hunch'

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. Intelligent Design is not the same as creationism  (intelligentdesign.org)

I know it's not the same as Creationism. But it's effectively the same thing, and the Creationists promote it as a "wedge" to get Creationism in the door, as they openly have admitted on many occasions. I know you've seen my posts about the Wedge Document of the Institute for Creation Research/Discovery Institute. You can see in section F of the decision, where the court considered the "Lemon test" (which is the legal standards test to see if an idea is designed to advance religion or is legitimately secular in nature), here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki....html#p167

Regardless of what the ID website's propaganda says, Jenny, ID is not science. They want us to think it is, by saying "community of scientists", but there's not any real science going on behind those claims. I'll cite Behe's own words, when asked about it, on the stand:

---

(Q = Attorney for the Plaintiff, A = Dr. Michael Behe on the stand, under oath.)

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

---

Internal emphases my own.

By the way, when he says, "But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word 'hypothesis', other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.", he is lying so he doesn't look like an ass because he can't apply the National Academy of Sciences basic, used-by-everyone, definition of theory to Intelligent Design.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/da...day11pm132