On 4/20/2011 2:09 PM, andrel wrote:
> If you look closely at the statements of ID you will find that there is
> no reference to who or what that 'intelligent designer' is or even how
> many there are.
> In practice a lot of ID advocates do not fully understand the concept
> and claim that they know the name of the designer. At that point they
> invalidate their own claim of it being a scientific hypothesis and their
> proposal will be taken out of the process.
> I am always amazed by the number of stupid mistakes they make. If their
> proposals had been more intelligently designed they could have been so
> much more effective in their quest for the removal of critical thinking
> from the US.
>
And, if you look even more carefully, with the exception of outliers, 
nearly every single one of the advocates have admitted, at one point or 
another, that God is the answer they want, and why they invented the 
whole idiocy in the first place. Second problem is, those outliers are 
not accepted by the main branch of ID at all, or even acknowledged much. 
Third, no designer other than god solves the central problem, which is, 
if something made life here, something else had to either have *been 
made* or *evolved* some place else. A fact that gives up the entire game 
right from the start line.

There is nothing about ID that isn't religion. Anything that implies 
otherwise has only been added as window dressing, while being rejected 
when talking about the real purpose, or the ravings of a few UFO people, 
who sort of like the idea, because they never look past the implications 
of life being created here, to the consequence of where/how it had to 
have started some place else.

Post a reply to this message