I think that the notion that a Creator could have been involved in the Big Bang/evolution paradigm is not equal to Creationism, but it is certainly being heavily used/abused by Creationists. I suspect that the only way to extricate your version of Intelligent Design from theirs may be to come up with a new name for it and just let them have Intelligent Design.

I do not believe in Intelligent Design involving an transcendant intelligent Creator myself, although I suppose the idea of self-creating, self-determining Cosmos could be thought of as proposing an immanent, intelligent Creator.

Mendalla

 I believe in scientific creationism in 6 day. The earth have 6000 years and a lot of thing can be explain with the catastrophic tectonic plates theory:

- 150 days of flood.

- Follow by 100 years of ice age.

- The creation of the 5 continents 

- The stratification of sediment

- Why carbon 14 give old date

- etc. etc.

Dave, the "lumping" with creationism stems from the fact that ID and Creationism are both rooted in faith alone whereas evolution is a scientific theory, based on the very observable and measurable natural world we see around us.

In the future, new evidence may suggest evolution must be modified or discarded in favour of a better theory that explains all of the data better - but the reality of our best empirical information today suggests that the theory of evolution best fits the data.

More specifically to ID - if we happen to make a discovery in the future that suggests something more mysterious and cosmic lay at the roots of creation - then new hypotheses can be formed and tested against the new evidence. But until then - we have to go with the best we've got.

=P ... and the dinosaurs? 

ID is creationism in a cheap suit.  Evolution is a solid scientific theory that not only fits the information we've gathered, but also predicts future discoveries.  ID is simply a failed hypothesis, promoted by religious organizations.  Whatever ID is, it is not science.  Efforts to paint an evolution/ID "debate" in the scientific community have been discredited.  There is no debate.  There may be debates about some of the finer points of evolution, but ID isn't the opposing side.

Ben Stein goes completely over-the-top and over the line when he suggests that the scientific worldview will lead to nazi-style eugenics, complete with nazi-themed backdrops. 

I would continue, but my daughter wants to go to the park.

The problem is that ID, as opposed to id, HAS been coopted by the religious reich as a foot-in-the-door.

Technically speaking, I also believe in "God's hand", but I don't need for it to supplant science.

It's like the fact that the swastika before Hitler had several meanings, none of whicch were sinister. However, since the Nazis coopted the swastika, and added such horrendous baggage to it, no one can use the symbol anymore.

Same thing with Intelligent Design. The Religious Reich has just ruined the phrase for everyone.

It would seem that ID is a non-starter as if you read up fully on the Dover Trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School) this should be abundantly clear.  If you aren't familiar with it, I might suggest you look especially at Brown University scientist Ken Miller's work ripping Behe's testimony apart and Judge Jone's seemingly apt description of "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover policy and of course his clear ruling against 'intelligent design'.   Behe's idea (certainly nothing so refined as a theory) of 'irreducible complexity' and Miller's input was a critical area in this - the whole argument is just wrong and has been rejected by the scientific community at large (this is a good area to hone in on if you're looking at Miller or Behe). 

Also in case you aren't aware, Miller and Jones (as well as Behe, of course) are Christian (fairly strong Christians, as I recall).  There was much more than Miller's evidence that sunk Behe, but Miller seemed simply outstanding, from my perspective.  I'm surprized that you're shocked, especially after Dover.

"Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" are pseudo scientific teachings propagated by the American Religious Right. Intelligent Design denies the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and teaches that the universe, as it is today, has been pre-designed by a supernatural Creator. Intelligent Design is not what most of us here on the café, and indeed many scientists, believe: that there is a transcendental power behind the creation and evolution of the universe.

Soooo... if I believe (note the word "believe" please - I understand that this is a faith statement, rather than a fact statement) that something with an intelligence greater than the sum of this universe at its inception - that's the same thing as "young earth creationism"?

Ouch.

I mean - I believe that something greater than humankind had a hand in designing the basic constants of this universe, and had a great time watching what came out of it. I don't believe that that something created the world we stand on in the fashion(s) it is described the book of Genesis. (Either account.)

Then, again, I don't think I'd be particularly upset if someone proved to me that those constants were created simply by chance (say... tangible proof of an non-finite multiverse - showing that all conditions possible exist, and that the conditions we have are one workable combination of many).

Interesting. I've never considered myself to be a "creationist".

I guess it all depends on the definition.

Christ's peace - r

"Do you equate Intelligent Design with Creationism?"

Yes!

Goodskeptic

The dinosaurs never existed.  God just put bones there to give us something to wonder about.

IT

Russ

Huzzah! I knew it. :)

 The dinosaurs live with the human before they disappear (after de flood).

Another scientific creationist here?

I actually saw a really good documentary, I think on PBS about this some months ago. It focused largely on a trial and fights among a school board concerning intelligent design/creationism. One of the biggest things was a discovery amongst the material turned over for evidence by a pro intelligent design group. It was clearly visisble where they did a cut and paste to take out the word "creationism" and just replaced it with "intelligent design". They were trying to sell it as something different because a court had previously ruled that creationism was religion and therefore you cannot religiously indoctrinate kids in a public school. The thing is their cut and paste was so sloppy you could clearly see what the original writing was. It was an attempt to change a single word and tell everyone it was completely different. The court ruled that intelligent design was religion and therefore did not belong in a science classroom. Even better the next election the pro-intelligent design people lost badly.

Hi Dave,

Yes, I do see creationism and intelligent design as one and the same.

In my opinion evolution must be taught in schools as fact.  I am a science nut and this does not interfere with my spirituality in the slightest. 

I don't agree with teaching atheism in schools as fact, though.  I think the textbooks should address the reality that an intention in the universe has not yet been proved nor disproved.

Hi DaveHenderson,

Difficult.  Maybe not functionally impossible so much as it is functionally improbable.

Intelligent design is a faith position not a scientific position.  Whether it needs to then be wed to "young earth" is just a step in a certain direction from a faith starting point.

Like yourself, I am not a 'young earth' creationist.  I am, however; a Creationist nonetheless.

I believe that God is Creator.  I also believe that God has, in the the tool box of the Divine, a tool that we have named evolution.  Theologically, God works change, within Creation.  How that change is implemented might be up for grabs (I don't think God is limited and yet, I do think God has some preferences).

How does the "sinner" evolve/change into the "saint?"  Does that happen without God's being involved?

Does God move within the physical processes as well as the emotional and spiritual ones?  How?

Beats me.

I mean I can say that I believe God does.  Can I prove it?  Nope.

Is evolution blind?  Depends on how one defines blind doesn't it?

So when I take a look at ID I see that it is, as starting point, a faith position.  Which means that it is not a scientific understanding of how things work.  By comparison, it is a study of the Carpenter, not Carpentry.  Science is driven to understand the carpentry more than it is to consider the Carpenter.  It is not concerned with who built the table so much as how it is concerned with how the table is built and whether or not one can build other tables.

I guess that would take ID out of the empirical sciences and place it more into philosophical endeavours.

Grace and peace to you.

John

^ Even I think the above is harsh.

A book I look forward to is "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins.  In the meantime, there are a multitude of places to find good information on evolution and rebuttals for the claims of creation/ID proponents.  Talk Origins is one such repository.

There is also a very good series of YouTube videos by a chap who goes by "Thunderf00t", titled "Why do people laugh at creationists?"

revjohn

Good points.

We get down to the definition of God.  Is he the guy on the cloud, the guy behind the scenes, or the explainable something that caused evolution to proceed to where we are now. 

Guess I side with the unexplainable something.  Doesn't need our prayers, doesn't interfere, may be impersonal, but still some underlying unexplainable what that pushes/causes evolution.

IT

Russ

Really?  I'd heard it was satan who put them there to deceive us.

As an agnostic, I think it would be arrogant in the extreme to pretend to know if the universe was intelligently designed or not.  Whose "intelligence" are we talking about?  

It could well be we are dimly perceiving a small segment of a much-larger pattern that might indicate purpose, but we'll never know.

I find the dismissal of either position flawed.  What we know is only through the narrow filter and adaptation of our primate-specific, sensate equipment. 

To think we could "know" anything like that is bizarre -- regardless of what side you're on. IMO.

RussP - when it comes to what we teach our children in science class however, it is dishonest to teach beliefs. It is infinitely more responsible, scientifically, to teach that we don't really know as there is no way for us to know.

I lean toward intelligent design and heavily away from 6-Day Creationism. That leaves Darwin in the middle.

I'm somewhat of a scientific person (Elect. Eng) and accept Darwin's observations but not his underlying causes. At some point we will likely understand what those causes are/were and, perhaps, find that the observable changes in the species were driven consciously by the species themselves rather than by random events.

Behind "consciously" you can make a connection to God. That is how I have morphed Darwin into ID.

And GoodSkeptic - it is best to teach our children the observations that Darwin had and to encourage their continuing observation. Let them draw their own conclusions.

You make it sound like it all started and ended with 'Darwin's observations', when in actuality we've now had 175 years of unrelentingly positive and supportive data through observation by scientists across the planet, not to mention testing, experimentation, peer-review and very importantly, application of evolutionary 'theory' (this theory is considered 'fact' by many scientists).  And there has never been any credible challenge from any scientist in all that time.

We also have support for teaching evolution in the school system by thousands upon thousands of US church clergy and other leaders (I specify 'US' only because the movement is organized down there - I thought it needs organizing down there more than here, but this thread sure makes me wonder).  

So, James, should we similarly tell students about the observations about gravity and let them 'draw their own conclusions'... and the same with chemistry, physics, astronomy and every other branch of science, or will we actually teach science as opposed to telling about observations?  What kind of 'teaching' would that be, what would be the long-term effect on Canada's education system and where would that place out kids in a future world where knowledge will likely be even more important than now?  What do you want for our children?

We don't 'know' everything about relativity or quantum theory - in fact we know there are problems with one or both of these theories since there are issues trying to tie them together into a larger or more all-encompassing theory.  But we teach them as we know them because they do indeed fit within science and both are useful.  The same is true with the theory of evolution (I recognise that you don't directly address evolution, but the initial question did).  Thus we should ignore teaching either way (intelligent or no intelligence), which is the status quo in all but religious schools, as far as I know.

I'm not sure where you're coming from here, but evolution is very directed - I mention this because many other (usually theistic in my experience) people state that evolution is blind, random or based totally on chance, which is not the case, of course.

Errr...  We 'teach atheism'?  Where and how, please?  And we 'teach atheism as fact'?  Same questions, please.  (I'm assuming that you don't mean atheism is a fact in the same way as theism is a fact, or hopefully you wouldn't have mentioned it...).

I met (one of?) RD's research assistant(s) for this book in California last year - neat guy! - and it really does sound like a book well worth looking forward to.

BrettA has produced a very good reply above.  I'll just touch on one more thing that stuck out to me:

The problem with that belief is, it doesn't explain anything.  Besides, there is no mechanism or "driving force" in evolution that is better explained by introducing any supernatural entity.  God simply isn't needed to explain why humans came into being.

Really, there is some wonderful information and explanations out there that present evolution in an easy-to-understand format, linked above.  It's beautiful stuff, and God doesn't explain, or help explain, any of it.

chansen

I do not claim that there is a supernatural entity, quite the opposite actually.  I simply observe that in this universe, matter goes from simpler to more complex.  This happens as a result of something, perhaps peculiar to this universe.  That is IT.

IT

Russ

"What do you think?  Can intelligent design and evolution converge successfully at key points once taken out of the hands of those who have tried to co-opt I.D. as a poster boy for creationism? "

That depends on  what you mean by evolution, a) simply change over time, b) diversity within a species or c) all life came into existence by chance and share one common ancestor.  I would say that ID does converge successfully with a and b but not with c, and there is the contention with neo-Darwinism.

ID

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

does lend credence to but does not have to equal Biblical creationsim. The proponents of ID intend for the theory to be Scientific and not Christian specific.

“Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.”

I contest that the ID = 6 literal days of creationism crowd merely want to put up straw men and engage in ad homonym attacks as is evident in some of the posts above.

Your link to The Discovery Institute implies to me that you're talking about what's discussed in books like "Of Pandas and People" and what the Dover trial was about.  That's the only concept relating to 'intelligent design' that seems topical these days, but it's no 'scientific theory' at all.  Or are you referring to something else? 

There's nothing about 6 literal days of creation in this concept but your note of this seems to be a red herring in that ID is simply not scientific (mention of '6 days' or not).  And since the hypothesis been rejected by the courts and by science as it currently stands, your suggestion that it 'converges successfully' with the diversity of species seems completely unfounded or possibly spurious.  On what basis do you mention this successful convergence, please?

“To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.” -- Dawk

Hi BrettA,

Hence my forming the point as a question rather than a statement of fact.

Directed how or by whom?

Which are questions that might be the domain of science and yet, they also allow for philosophy.

I'm aware of the strawman arguments against evolution.  Just because I am a theist it doesn't follow that I must support them, that is also something of a strawman isn't it?

I also believe that the universe is multilayered and so there are multiple ways to interpret data.

Much like there are multiple reasons to like Neopolitan or Spumoni Ice Cream.

I might like chocolate a lot and be luke warm to artificial strawberry.  So I can like Neopolitan and give as reasons that I think Chocolate and vanilla go well together.

And I do.  I also think that pistachio is better than artificial strawberry and so would pick spumoni over neopolitan any day of the week.

Now do I like pistachio because of its flavour or because I like its colour?

Different layers.  Each have different 'proofs'

Which is why I don't think that positing God as a Creator automatically renders evolution null and void.  It would be me addressing a different layer of the whole enterprise.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hence my starting by saying I'm not sure where you're coming from and continued with a note that others often state this (and in more unambiguous and absolute terms, by the way) - thus I was clarifying the point and no more.

Natural selection and its variants, so no philosphy is needed for this area of science. 

No strawman from me that I can see where I'm clarifying common strawman arguments that I specifically noted are in the context of others (usually theists) people.  You sound like you're taking this more personally that I had intended by my chosen verbiage.  Or am I misreading you?  What 'something of a strawman' do you refer to.

I never suggested it does and specifically mentioned that anything related to any 'God' or intellgence (presence or absence) should not be mentioned regarding the teaching of evolution.

Peace.  And may the FSM caress you with his noodly appendages.

“Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion.” -- Steven Weinberg

Evolution includes (a), explains (b) and (c) is only half-right:  Evolution does not say "all life came into existence by chance".

They can intend all they want - ID is still not a scientific theory.  It's just a weak hypothesis, and it's not even a testable hypothesis.

Was the judge in the Dover trial not honest when he wrote that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory"?  Judge Jones is also a Republican and a churchgoer.

Whether it's the 6 day/6000-year-old creationists or those who believe even God isn't that efficient, ID is based in belief - not science.  That's why it doesn't belong in science class, and that's why it loses court challenges whenever it tries to get its foot in the door.

Chansen

“Evolution does not say "all life came into existence by chance".”

Ok then, by what?

Chansen

“Was the judge in the Dover trial not honest when he wrote that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory"?  Judge Jones Jones is also a Republican and a churchgoer.”

Do court cases now determine what is or is not science?

No one knows at this point, although science is attempting to create life under similar conditions.  However, even if it succeeds, the chance that it will be Carbon/RNA/DNA-based life seems vanishingly small, at least to me.  There is simply no fossil evidence of the very beginnings of life (3.9+ BYA), so determination is extraordinarily difficult, though fossil evidenc indeed goes back very close to that (~3.7 BYA, if I recall correctly).

Science had long rejected it - well, never seriously considered it since it was never published in a scientific journal - and it only ended up in the courts because the Dover School board tried to push it into the science curriculum.  Thus it was forced into the courts and the Christian judge indeed 'determined' (from a legal perspective) that it was not science.  As I remember it though, most of the testimony came from scientists.  Bottom line:  The scientific method was never used to come up with this idea and it never was science.

“Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science.” -- Gary Zukav, in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' ... (Interesting book, BTW;  and dedicated to you!)

BrettA

“And since the hypothesis been rejected by the courts and by science as it currently stands, your suggestion that it 'converges successfully' with the diversity of species seems completely unfounded or possibly spurious.  On what basis do you mention this successful convergence, please?”

I don’t  believe scientists should yeild to the opinoin of the courts to determine the validity of a hypothesis; furthermore, to simply say my group of scientists regects your hypothesis does not in it self delegitimize it.

My suggestion that diverrsity within a species is consistent with ID theory is simple. Design does not preclude diversity and diversity does not preclude a designer. As to the diversity of species, I don’t see how the position that there is a designer eliminates diversity as not possible.

"A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed."

-Michael J. Behe
"Molecular Machines: Experimental
Support for the Design Inference"

No 'yielding' necessary at all - it never was science.  And regarding you last point, the scientific method was NOT USED, so it's not merely a rejection by some scientists... see my previous post on this, please.  In fact, that's a point that came up in the trial...  Behe was prepared to change the definition of 'science' because even he recognized that what he was doing was NOT science.

No one that I know suggests that there is anything 'inconsistent' with either ID or the concept of a designer...  there is simply no evidence for either... so one could just as readily claim that aliens, Santa or my mythical friend 'Skak' could have been involved...  or indeed, done it all!  This is the same as any concept of a 'God'... I submit that there can never be anything 'inconsistent' with any all-powerful and omniscient 'god'... there just ain't no evidence.  Zero.  Zip.  Squat. Nada.  A rien.  None.  (Please also refer to 'Occam's Razor'.)

Not sure what you want me to do with this irrelevant quote - did you have a point?

BrettA

 “No one knows at this point”

Precisely, no one knows at this point yet how can you know there was no ID component to what you don’t know happened?

BrettA

 “it was never published in a scientific journal”

Here are three publications in support if ID.

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library, 1984, Lewis & Stanley, 4th ed., 1992).

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Regnery Publishing, 2004).

William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002).

There are plenty more but I have to admit, not as many as could be if there wasn’t a Marxist chill against allowing them into some publications.

 BrettA

“The scientific method was never used to come up with this idea and it never was science.”

The scientific method being?

  BrettA

 “Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science.” -- Gary Zukav, in 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' .

Not sure what you want me to do with this irrelevant quote - did you have a point?

As I understand it, Creationism is the belief that the God of the Bible made everything.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, just means that some intelligent mind(s) created everthing.

Thus, while Creationism is Intelligent Design, Intelligent Design is not necessarily Creationism.

_{Well, that's the way I've always understood it anyway.}

Hi BrettA,

I didn't mean that atheism IS taught in our schools and will state more clearly that I believe the question of God or not God should be left out of science class.    If the question of God is raised (and it surely will be), it should be noted that evolution neither proves nor disproves God or an intention in the universe.   

Studying that light can be both a wave and a particle, depending on how you are looking at it, proves that perception is a gamble.  My own changing perceptions reinforce this belief to me. 

ID is a sort of generic expression of Creationism, and Creationism is the scriptural basis for ID. In my mind, the terms are very close but not interchangeable.

Well, that's why I asked if you were refering to the idea of Behe's... if you've got another idea, please present it (I like my atheist friend Skak - I figure he did it all.)

Errr...  These are not scientific journals in any way, shape or form.

Oh, dear... Now this conversation makes sense. With all due respect, I'd suggest some remedial high school for you...   I'm not your private tutor and (again - *sigh*) given that Behe admitted this in court, this lack of understanding is clearly yours and not the more 'qualified' advocates or promoters of ID.  You might try Googling if you don't want school.  This is pretty basic stuff for anyone discussing science - as you are in this case.   Edit:  Googling "Scientific Method" just yielded 3,020,000 hits... so it's not like the term is even remotely obdcure and you've got lots of places to choose from (Wikipedia was at the top, as is often the case).

Oh, my...  I thought it would have been abundantly clear given the religious underpinning of this whole topic, the discussion of what science is (and your lack of understanding thereof) and your questions on ID and presentation of books when I was discussing scientific journals... 

This was an attempt to summarize the problems you've had throughout this sub-thread - that is, anything can theoretically be accepted by people with a (Western) religious mind-set, while concepts like ID (and the tooth-fairy, leprechauns, Ra, Santa, gnomes, Cai Shen, goblins, Amotken, psychics, Baal, yifs, the IPU, super-orbital yogic flying, the Kind and Mighty FSM and 000s of other unsubstantiated and unverifiable concepts) when presented as truth, theory or anything else that can be substantiated, will be rejected Western science as being unfounded.  Thus, none of this gets taught as science.

Cheers, abpenny - thanks for that!  I submit that - except in religious schools - this will almost always be the case and certainly should be the case with any competent science teacher.   In fact if it wasn't the case, I strongly suspect we'd hear about it in the press.

That being said, evolution has been instrumental in persuading many Christian students to become atheistic and I recall certain US religious people (can't recall who right now) recommending that parents dissuade their kids from taking college-level evolutionary courses for just that reason.    Edit:  I just found one note - though neither quote nor original reference was provided - that Kent Hovind was one of these people (no surprise there, methinks...  I wonder if he's out of prison yet.  Later:  Hovind's not scheduled for release 'til 2015 and there's another 3 years probation after that.  Also, I just saw that his wife 'Jo' is also serving time as of January, 2009 - dunno why and don't care enough to try to find out).

BrettA, I'm not looking for a definition because I am not aware of one, I am looking for your definition so that we can agree and be clear. I simply want to establish what you would accept as the scientific method that you claim was not used with respect to the development of the ID theory. I suspect you may be working with a false assumption and can’t flesh that out unless you substantiate your assertion. As for the quote I was hoping you would recognize the sarcastic nature of my questioning your quote in the same manner you questioned mine. Behe was obviously suggesting ID applies to biochemistry; I can’t imagine how you missed that, the relevancy appears obvious.

You were right, those were peer-reviewed books; these are examples of peer-reviewed articles.

John A. Davison, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.

I apologize for my mistake.

C'mon, Bro'... it's not a definition, it's a very common methodology and if you know what it's all about, I'm comfortable that we'll be in agreement.  I'm not gonna waste my time documenting this based on request from you (ain't yer tutor; and am also not the one wanting this spelt out), but if you want to - which might seem likely - goferit.  And as I said, this isn't even contentious as Behe and everyone else I've ever heard of agrees - one wonders just why you keep related questions coming.

Will look into your references but given dismissal from the scientific community and the courts of ID and IR, I'm more than doubtful of any relevance.  After all, the Dover descision was rendered in December 2005 and thus this would have been used by Behe if there was any validity to them - as I mentioned, even Behe was forced to admit in the Dover proceedings that it wasn't science (it was even a rather funny read as I recall - like they're gonna change the definition of science because one sketchy idea doesn't fit... LOL!).    Edit:  Oh, unless you're just saying they were published as opposed to being accepted as valid - and if I was wrong there and they were published but rejected... mea culpa, but the end result stays the same.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that the quote wasn't related to the discussion - I was stating that the concept that Behe came up with is simply not science and is thus irrelevant to any discussion about science...  I thought you'd pick up on that given that (for the 3rd or 4th time) Behe agreed it wasn't science.

BrettA, you claimed, "the scientific method was NOT USED" with respect to ID theory. I merely want you to substantiate that claim; explain your reasons for holding that belief. I find that when I read a book or article from Behe, Dembksi, Meyer or Gonzalez the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experiment and conclusion is evident. By what criteria have you determined it is not or was not used?

Errr...  try prediction for one (I guess I was wrong that we'd agree, huh?  Quel suprise, pour moi! ...  But kind'a droll, methinks).  Also to be really honest, I've gotta start questioning even your ability for critical thought (or perhaps, knowledge) given that embarrassingly simple Behe quote you provided.  D'ya think the 747 in a junkyard self-asssembling is a good analogy for evolution, too?  As someone discussing ID and the ToE, it makes me think that you really don't grasp the significant differences between the two.  Do you in fact appreciate them?  Or do you really only understand the concepts around ID, but not around evolution?

This point on critical thought / lack of knowledge crops up with other very naive comments of yours as well, such as the completely off-base ones also in your 13:03 post around 'yielding to opinion of the courts' and your comments around '(in)consistency' and 'not possible'.  Plus your earlier one re "successful convergence".   I note that whenever I point out the very real flaws or irrelevancies in thes and other comments, all you do is come up with more...  can you please comment on these, plus the fact that Behe agreed in court that it wasn't science, which I think you've ignored about 4 or 5 times now. 

It's like you're living in the past and don't acknowledge that your 'arguments' have been soundly refuted (or please, tell me why I'm wrong when you do comment on these).  Do you have any new material (what you present sure ain't new)?  Does Behe still even teach this stuff?  Are you simply flogging a dead horse (as it sounds right now to me)?  I'm not trying to claim that I know... but I haven't heard a peep out of the ID crowd since Dover and if it's me that's living in the past and there have been all sorts of advancements in the ID/IR area, I apologise.  While I do try to follow this subject and would expect to hear new and relevant findings, one of the great things about these fora is that you can learn so much.

You forgot a couple of other articles that are said to "challenge" evolution.  I only looked up Davison and the Behe/Snoke article.

Davison is a real piece of work.  He likes to tell both sides of the Evolution/ID debate that they are wrong.  He comments on science blogs, and at best, could be described as an "Internet troll", baiting and insulting people until he gets banned, then boasts that he was "banned by neodarwinists".  He also is the author of numerous blogs, most with one post and hundreds of comments - mostly his own.  PZ Myers explains Davison's shtick nicely at this page:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/update_your_blogrolls_um_not.php

This alone doesn't make him wrong, just insane.  What reading I did do suggests that his work above is high on assumptions and rhetoric and low in evidence.  Also, since you brought them up, Behe and Dembski won't go anywhere near Davison - something Davison gloats about.  Just google "John A. Davison" and "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis".  You'll be amazed at what this guy says online, and how little real information he provides.  Here is one blog comment from Davison (#171):

Yes, he quoted himself at the end of his comment.

If you're picking 3 articles to support ID or challenge evolution, that was a weak opening hand.

As for the Behe/Snoke article, that was already refuted.  Here is a good summary:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/evo.cfm

Basically, these people may have followed something that may resemble the scientific method to challenge conventional evolutionary theory, but their hypotheses are being shot out of the water.  ID itself is not a scientific theory, and it doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis.  Therefore, it's not science.

I'm tired.  I'll let someone else deal with the Meyer article.

The proplem with "Intelligent Design" is not the word "Intelligent" but the word "Design," as if the world as it is today had been pre-designed by a cosmic superpower and then made according to design.
 

The Theory of Evolution clearly refutes that evolution is a pre-designed process, but it does not refute that there could be some higher power behind it wich nudges it in the direction it is naturally headed: Toward ever-increasing intelligence, consciousness, awareness, beauty, complexity, variety and diversity.

Once again, you can't falsify a hypothesis so vague as "some higher power behind it which nudges it in the direction it is naturally headed...."  Similarly, neither scientists nor creationists can refute the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I can't say for sure there isn't an invisible dragon in my garage right now.

Arm, I know you're not arguing in favour of ID as science (and I am secure that it will never get a toe-hold in Canadian schools with our increasingly secular society), but neither God nor the FSM nor any other supernatural force is needed to explain any part of evolution.  It works just fine without that assumption.

Could be.  I dunno.  I think God created world.  I have not really thought farther than that.  I don't think that it is important to me how God did it.

I'm kind of like that. As a matter of faith I do believe that GOD is the author of creation. While I tend to doubt the literal 6 day/6000 year thing it's not somthing I lose sleep over. Whether it was 6 days or 6 epochs lasting millions of years each I believe that GOD was in charge. That's enough for me.

The point is, I think, that it also works just fine WITH that assumption.  It is an assumption, you are right, not a verifiable or falsifiable fact.  I can respect your right to not use the assumption.  And I hope that you can respect my right to use it.