Religious conservatives tout "intelligent design" as a "science" ...

[Trajan]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210002

Religious conservatives tout "intelligent design" as a "secular," "scientific" alternative to evolution

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit challenging the Dover (Pennsylvania) Area School District's adoption of the theory of "intelligent design" -- which maintains that an "intelligent force" has directed the evolution of life on earth -- as part of its schools' science curriculum on the grounds that it is a violation of the separation of church and state. Following reports of the lawsuit on December 15, Reverend Pat Robertson expressed full support on The 700 Club for teaching the theory, and former Republican presidential candidate and MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan led a Scarborough Country panel discussion that was heavily imbalanced in favor of teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution -- rejecting the idea that "intelligent design" is disguised creationism. Despite the efforts of Robertson and the majority of the Scarborough Country panel to characterize "intelligent design" as science-based, most scientists and educators dismiss it, with some identifying the formulation as a thinly veiled effort to dress up creationism as science, on a par with the theory of evolution.

According to the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA), "intelligent design" is "a scientific theory" that maintains that "life is not the result of purely natural processes, but that it was in some way designed by an 'intelligence.'"

"Intelligent design" has found its strongest support in the media from religious conservatives who consider it a viable, scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. The heavily imbalanced December 15 Scarborough Country panel, led by Buchanan, promoted this view. The panel consisted of Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Christian music artist Natalie Grant; Republican strategist Jack Burkman; and David Silverman, communications director for American Atheists and the lone dissenting voice.

In the course of the discussion, Mohler -- who declared his belief in creationism -- lauded "intelligent design" as a "scientific" and "credible" alternative to evolution, which he described later as an "intellectual pacifier for the secular left":

-snip-

[bowens43]

1. Nope. It's not scientific, it's not credible , it's not a theory

and it's not an alternative to evolution. It's a Trojan horse for creationism. These people are not going to quit until they have established their theocracy.

[TaraMoon]

7. End-run around science

You're absolutely right. Intelligent Design is being used to
do an end-run around science.  Because it contains
scientific-sounding gobbledygook, its being used to con people
who are not educated in science.  These people are dangerous.
They are, indeed, attempting to install a theocracy.  They are
succeeding while the Left sleeps.

[sakabatou]

8. Right

It's can't be falsified and it isn't imperical. Therefore it isn't a science.

[dave123williams]

2. Well, gravity works the same way here as it does on the other side

...of the Galaxy...the laws of Physics do seem to have a cohesion that implies that they're 'rules'. Intelligent design? I dunno.

From what I can tell, it's a way for people who are Christians to integrate the idea of empericism in to their worldview.

[evil genius]

3. Creationists are religious ignoramuses

[oly]

4. Follow the links in this P. Schlafly story and response -- very funny.

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/ms_schlafly_you_receive_an_f.php

[baba]

5. Can you believe in both intelligent design and evolution?

I had a discussion with my fundie sister about this. I was thinking that believing in evolution doesn't necessarily mean that you can't believe that there was an "intelligent force" at work behind all of it. But now, I'm looking on the web and the theories DO seem incompatible, at least as they currently stand. I wonder if there are any articles or books that do a successful job at reconciling the two theories, or coming up with a "hybrid" theory.

[TaraMoon]

6. Why would you want a hybrid theory?

Why would you want a hybrid theory? What would it give you? What need would it fill?

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Lots of "Theories" Out There

So evolution is a "Theory" -- well I am a Progressive/Liberal "of faith" - the same flavor as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Martin Luther King Jr and Rabbi Michael Lerner-- and I hope God, in Her wisdom and mercy saves us from James Dobson and the Creationist and Intelligent Designers.

Now, you typed appends on a computer with solid state circuit chips - that's the "Quantum Theory" - a MOSFET (Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor - that's what chips have, millions of MOSFETs) is "Quantum Theory Device."

You have a radio or tv? It has an antenna. Antennas are based on Maxwell's Theory, not Maxwell's Law, but Maxwell's Theory. And Maxwell's Theory is derived based on imaginary numbers - the square root of minus root. There ain't no such - it is imaginary.

Then it gets worse. Maxwell's Theory uses DIV, CURL, and GRAD - sometime in my undergraduate career I learned how to visualize and use GRAD - but DIV and CURL are pure memorization - accepted on "Faith."

I have a better understanding of evolution then I do of DIV, CURL, and GRAD - but I "believe" in Quantum Theory and Maxwell's Theories on more faith then evolution. To me evolution is proven fact. Quantum Theory and Maxwell's Theory are just integrating factors in differential equations that fit the observations.The case for evolution (and against Intelligent Design and Creationism) is stronger then the case for Quantum Theory and Maxwell's Theory.

Enough with the bull- Check out Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" - a good, "faith based rebuttal" to "(un)intelligent design" and "creationism".