Bohm: I tend to agree with Demski's theory of "Specified Complexity." I believed that before I heard of his theory.
Cofty:
For starters, I copied both your long posts to me an pasted them in a word processor and interjected a response to all your points. There were a lot of 'red herrings' and opinions addressed, and the result was too long to post here in a thread, so I'm just going to cut to the chase (and it's still pretty long).
The thing that kept appearing was that you were presenting red-herring arguments to defend evolution or to define ID as a religion.
Regardless of who advances Intelligent Design, or what their personal motives are or were, Intelligent Design (ID) is not religion and it is not science, just like atheism is not religion and it is not science. They might be considered philosophies. And ID is not anti-evolution, so defending evolution is digressing.
Here is a partial quote from the DI's mission statements:
Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.[emphasis mine]
Now you can claim they are lying, but regardless of the personal objectives of some of its proponents, that's from the mission statement is for Discovery Institute.
You brought up the Dover trial. I have commented on that before in this thread. I said I agree with the Judge's decision. Quote the Honorable John E. Jones:
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States . . .
I said it previously and I'll say it again: I agree with the judge's decision. ID is not science.
But while we're on it, the opponents like yourself keep referring to this case as if it was some big national or international victory that set a spectacular precedent. It was just a local lawsuit in a Pennsylvania school district that got rather sensational coverage among skeptics. Nevertheless, try not to forget again that I said I agree with the decision.
What I will concede is that, as theists, ID proponents are trying to gain equal ground with the atheist-implied undercurrent in evolution study in the schools. That underlying premise is covertly appreciated by atheist proponents because it helps validate their own bias, and that is where I tend to agree with you that there is a legitimate question in reference to so-called "theistic evolution."
Bottom line:
The issue is not about evolution versus religion, it's about atheism versus deism. In my opinion, deism is not religion.
Numberous notable scientists and philosophers have been deists (Einstein, Flew, . . .). And while you have noted that scientists like Francis Collins who are Christian subscribe so-called "theist evolution," you do not note the fact that Collins is a self-described former atheist who claims that science helped convince him there is a god. Same is true of Einstein and Anthony Flew (who was convinced by the kind of dna evidence presented by Stephen Meyer, which you say was "not impressive).
You ask what I say Intelligent Design has contributed to science.
Comment: Red herring.
Answer: Nothing--it isn't science.
What ID scientists may have contributed to science as individuals depends on where they work and what field of science they work in (iinvariably with others who have different religious perspectives). For all I know some ID scientists may have also made contributions in the fields of medicine, nuclear energy, and so forth.
Fwiw, most of my adult career has been working for scientists and engineers in the fields of nuclear energy (one listed in Who's Who (a Mormon elder) and high-tech). They came from all various religious, skeptic, agnostic and atheist perspectives. But they would still play Bridge together riding on a bus through security checkpoints to the reactors and labratories in the desert.
ID is not science. ID is not religion. ID is not anti-evolution. Like atheism, ID is a philosophy about origin. Confined to scientific application, it is deism versus atheism. It should not be taught as science.
~Binadub