Is ID based on science? If not it has no place in a science subject. Topics like ID are what philosophy and theology classes are for.
There's a fine line between being in denial and being a liar. The ID aim quite clearly is to invoke all those things you list. Discovery Institute , hub of the ID movement, states in its "wedge" manifesto, its aims and goals omnipotent Creator: "...the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God" based on the Genesis account: replace it [science] with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions anti-evolution: " Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as... Charles Darwin.........infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art, Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies " Now, you can word play, spin, avoid, dodge and re-define, as ID always does. But to say Darwin "infected".... that is an ID refusal and denial through their own re-definition of science. They call that extremist view a "Renewal" of science. Intelligent Design IS creationism IS christian fundamentalism.
I doubt Behe or Dembski or the Discovery Institute as a whole would be at all impressed with your self attributed ability.. So indeed you are on the fringe, a sect ( how many members?...1? ) outside the mainstream ID /creationist movement. A more appropriate title for your thread would now be "My personal version of Intelligent Design is not creationism" ....all that ability to focus and without consideration of theology, but not the ability it seems to focus without consideration of pseudo-science.. Nothing wrong with that at all, but In this thread, you do not seem to have what might appear to be a more useful ability, to avoid confusing those ID opinions with science. Intermingling your personal version of ID , with scientifically observable natural events like Evolution which is not about the origin of life, IS disingenuous.. By unguided you mean natural ? Then one's views will start and end in philosophy, not science. Slotting bits of ' science-redefined ' and ID / creationism in between, won't make turn it into science.
I find that last piece of advice from Stu pretty funny. Do you think acknowledge there is a debate in the scientific community about whether the universe appears designed?
Stu wrote: Pure bunk. ID has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. ID is not based on the Bible, does not invoke the supernatural, and is not anti-evolution. While ID critics continually conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism for rhetorical and political reasons, the creationists themselves do not consider ID proponents to be fellow creationists. No less than John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, comments as follows:
"(snipped)While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them." ID is a non-christian movement? Holy illogic batman. Premises: 1. All creationists necessarily believe in ID. 2. Not all ID proponents believe in God. Let's add in some other essential premises and come to the most logical conclusion: 3. The gross majority of ID proponents are Christian. 4. The founders of the ID movement are Christian. Conclusion: ID is predominately, as in 99%, a Christian ideology because ID is based primarily on Christian creationism of one type or another. And with the majority of proponents being Christian, that would essentially make ID a Christian movement. With that said, enjoy the next 8 months trying to ferret out the "generous" 1% I attributed to IDer's who are non-Christian to bolster the thread premise that ID is not creationism. Or, optimistically, a new thread will be started titled, "Intelligent Design is not exclusively creationism."
D2.0 wrote: Wrong. Just because the majority of ID proponents are Christian it doesn't necessarily follow that ID is based primarily on creationism of one type or another. The majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists. Does that mean evolutionary biology is based on an atheistic ideology?
Rather easy to come to any conclusion if you are allowed to make up your own numbers( 99% and 1%). Is that how you come to your evolutionary conclusion as well?
while the professors themselves may not state they are part of the ID movement there are debates going on about the subject in the top echelons of physics. You don't have to be a christian to recognize design. see my contributions of quotes from physicists on this thread and others.