lovelylil
ID is part of what is know as the Wedge Stratagy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
It was developed by the Discovery Institute;
The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990 as a non-profit educational foundation and think tank based upon the Christian apologetics of C.S. Lewis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ID is demonstrably a stratagy conconcted by devout Christians who see ID as a method of getting god back in the classrooms. By 'debranding' a form of Creationism from Christianity they hope it will duck under the the 'no religion' bar masquerading as a science.
Yes, the research in this area is still new but that does not mean it is invalid.
Research on what exactly? Here's the skinny; ID consists of finding some perceived fault in modern evolutionary theory and saying 'Ha! Natural selction could not have done this! This was DESIGNED!'. It is a parasite; it exists on the blood of proper science.There is no 'research' because there is NOTHING to research. I am not being rude or funny; this is a fact. There is no proof of a designer, just speculation that x theory cannot explain y feature, so a designer must have done it.
All such examples either were the result of inadequate knowledge and ARE explicable by theory, or have subsequently been shown to be explicable by theory.
ID falsifies itself; it states that complexity requires a designer, yet such a designer would be complex, either requiring a contradiction in the hypothesis or an infinate chain of designers, which is just silly.
And it really does not matter if these scientists are in the minority right now as this is true when all new theories are brought forth.
And these THEORIES (in the past) had EVIDENCE. Even when they required science books to be re-written, if the evidence supported the new theory it gained sway over human truculence. ID is a hypothesis and has no evidence.
When was the Bible last re-written because they found a mistake in it? Hmmmm.... glad you liked the quote, by-the-way... no magic smiley for you I think but that is a good thing...
Of course, ID is a sneaky Trojan-Horse. Belief-lite, bought to you by people who think 'Merely Christian' is a good read, who would LOVE to get the Bible in the classroom, but know they haven't got a chance, so will try to ensure SOME degree of belief gets instilled in the next generation rather than them being 'nasty' Nerglists.
You might not be aware of the fact about ID, either its origins (it evolved out of Creationism, ain't that funny?), or the clever little 'Emperor's New Clothes' routine they have done making people think they actually have something like theories (check definiton) or evidence, I hope you don't mind this particular perspective and might find it of interest.
BTW, I am a God believer but I personally do believe in evolution and think it is valid scientifically. As the evidence shows it to be such.
Good for you. Believing in a god that 'rolled the dice' and was cool enough to have what she wanted happen at the end happen coz it threw them just so is a far more viable belief than many. Doesn't stop the absurd image of endless gods creating each other or special pleading that different rules apply to god (based on no evidence). It all depends on what you mean by god. Somedays I believe in god... it is just a vastly bigger and vauger one than before, one that doesn't even have to have a reality as it is an expression of philosophical outlook more than anything else, but is as grand as anything all the same. And still god. I hope yours suits you.
Here is a link which lists many modern day scientists who believe either in ID or God. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/Scroll down to the middle of the page and the fields of science will be listed. You will see that many are in the biology or anthropology fields. Peace, Lilly
Very very. Very few. You DO realise how FEW that list contains, compared to people researching and teaching evolutionary biology and associated sciences. Don't think they goit bored with phoning people up and asking... this list was the result of something not dissimilar to scraping the bottom of a barrel... finding one;
- not in a sympathetic faculty (like Bob Jones on Bingham Young) or an ID or Creationist institute. (BYU has a guy who believes in the Flood AND that they blew up the Twin Towers...)
- with their major experience in the field of evolutionary science or chronology they are commenting on
- with peer-reviewed papers on their ID or Creationist beliefs in peer-reviewed journals similar to ones they might release papers in their field of expertise in
... is astonishingly difficult. Reading about some of the names given (try TalkOrigins or Wikipedia) is also astonishing. Few people go to plumbers to have their teeth done, why treat your theories of origin less carefully?
This isn't specifically at you lil, just musing on the topic in general.