(1) ID is either religion or a religion;
(2) ID is not science.

On the latter point, there’s more, a concise but comprehensive article entitled “Why Intelligent Design isn’t science”: http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#whyintelligent

Up until now, there was no need to be personal. The 2 above deductions required nothing more than simple, plain rational objectivity. Now, however, it’s time to get personal.

Specifically, ID offends my religious beliefs. imo, ID denigrates God and His majesty.

Now, I’m must walk a very fine line here. Since I’m a Christian (ie, Christ is my Savior), I must honor Christ’s teachings, chief among which is His admonition to always love and never condemn. So, IDers, please accept this criticism in that spirit.

It’s very simple. In my religion, God is omnipotent enough to create a Universe which operates exactly the way evolutionists stipulates it operates. In your religion, God is not so omnipotent.

My God created the universe and imbued it with a few, simple laws, and then left it alone. Those few laws drove the inorganic and organic evolution of the Universe. About 13.7 billion years after this creation, mankind evolved.

Your God wasn’t smart enough to create a universe where simpler life forms spawned more complex life forms. Your God needed to be involved in every step of that process.

Sorry, but my God is superior to your God. Your God needs to constantly futz obsessively with the minutiae of the universe. My God is intelligent enough to create a universe that generates itself.

In summary, Babu, my science is better than your science, and my God is better than your God.

The problem with ID is that it denigrates both rationality and faith, both science and religion.

Here’s the short version from the Discovery Institute:

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php

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.

The scientific 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. Intelligent design theory then is an alternative solution to answer problems with Darwinian evolution.

The IDEA center has a longer version:

http://www.ideacenter.org/about/history.php

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization dedicated to promoting intelligent design theory.

Here’s IDEA center take #1:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

FAQ: Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation –> hypothesis –> experiment –> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.

Their long answer follows, but it’s not germane. Their take #2 is:

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

This Web page is short and readable. I’m going to condense it and excerpt only its key arguments.

When we scientifically analyze a complex structure, the author maintains that we can ask 3 and only 3 questions about it:

(1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it?

The author maintains that, if we can’t attribute the genesis of a complex structure to a law (ie, a scientific law) or to chance (ie, a stochastic process), then we must conclude that a designer created it.

Let’s pause. OK, Intelligent Designers, I’ll give you 30 minutes to review the article and critique my summary. (Insert Jeopardy final question theme music here, replayed 60 times). OK, time’s up. No critiques? Let’s continue, then.

Let’s pause again. OK, those of you who can still ratiocinate (IDers need not apply), I’ll give you 10E-20 seconds to discover the fatal flaw in the positing-3-questions scenario. Yep. Pretty obvious, wasn’t it? In a nutshell:

Couldn’t the genesis of the complex structure be due to heuristic laws or stochastic processes currently unknown to the scientific community?

The logical fallacy here is Argument from Ignorance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance … is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

The latter applies.

In a worthy evisceration of some of the science behind Intelligent Design, Richard Wein restates the above:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

This type of argument is commonly known as an argument from ignorance or god-of-the-gaps argument. So there is no danger of misunderstanding, let me clarify that the accusation of argument from ignorance is not an assertion that those making the argument are ignorant of the facts, or even that they are failing to utilize the available facts. The proponents of an argument from ignorance are demanding that their explanation be accepted just because the scientific community is ignorant (at least partially) of how an event occurred, rather than because their own explanation has been shown to be a good one.

The Wikipedia entry restate Wein’s last sentence:

(A) person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.

Let’s paraphrase this ID argument: So, you scientists can’t describe in complete detail how the cell was created either by the actualization of scientific laws or random processes? Therefore, God created the Universe.

Let’s give an iconic example. In 1952, IDers would have argued that, since science had not discovered a biological or molecular mechanism common to all life, God created the Universe. Then, in 1953, Watson and Crick ‘discovered’ DNA. IDers responded by saying, “Yea, but …”

Many Yea, but’s later, IDers are still committing the same logical fallacy.

Can ID-as-science be casually dismissed? Yes. Next.

I recommend that this fine publication spawn a secondary Web site: Pseudo-Intellectual Conservative. Since ID violates the most basic tenets of logic and thus intellectuality, further ID articles have no place here.

Is ID a religion?

OneLook.com, ‘quick’ definitions: Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; institution to express belief in a divine power.

Based upon these definitions, let’s peruse your article and excerpt relevant portions:

But God was there first. Remember that! … Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry… The beginning of the universe, therefore, points to a supernatural origin! …Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker… All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God.

You use ‘God’, ‘Designer’, & ‘Maker’ as synonyms. To you, God is supernatural.

Let’s restate the first part of the definition: Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Your own words affirm that definition. Therefore, you consider ID a religion. If so, then the second part of the definition applies:

Religion: institution to express belief in a divine power.

Continuing, you said:

Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

You make a common mistake re the First Amendment. Here’s what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. The key phrase is italicized.

Remember: we’ve demonstrated that ID is a religion. Therefore, teaching ID in public schools would establish ID as a state-approved religion.

But, you’re a fair guy, Babu. Here’s what you said:

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue.

NP. If it’s fair to teach your religion in public schools, then it would be fair to teach other religions, too, as well as its logical opposite atheism plus other belief systems on the theism-atheism scale such as agnosticism.

Continuing your please for fairness, you should willingly embrace my offer to discuss various topics with your congregation. Suggested topics are:

God approves of abortion.
God approves of homosexuality.
God approves of death with dignity.

It’s only fair.

(2) Even if we provisonally (and irrationally) accept ID as a scientific theory, together ID and evolution do not comprise the totality of all possible theories re origins. Thus, any negation of evolution does not affirm ID.

(3) Even if we provisionally accept that ID negates aspects of evolution, said negation rests upon the irrationality that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

(4) Any organized body of beliefs like ID that posits the existence of a supernatural entity is a religion.

Babu,

All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God.

No. Science is not about faith in God. Faith in God is religion. Logically simplifying: Science is not religion.

Now, let’s do the reverse: Religion is faith in God. Believing in God (ie, having faith in a God) is not within the purview of science. Again logically simplifying: Religion is not science.

(5) Science is not religion, and religion is not science.

Phil

Sorry, rcollins, but you're revealing your position as an advocate of ignorance. Babu claims a bachelor's degree in theology and biology, and writes with a certain perspective. And I'll stop right there pointing Babu's many deficiencies.

Would you rather believe Babu's article, or the latest book by Dr. Neil Shubin, "Your Inner Fish" – see http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/book.html – which goes into a fascinatingly detailed explanation of how evolution actually works? (Dr. Shubin is a Professor of Anatomy at the University of Chicago. He is an actual scientist, unlike Babu, and has about a million times more understanding about biology than Babu ever will.)

Would you rather believe Babu's article, or a recent publication by Dr. Kevin Padian, who was one of the star expert witnesses in the 2005 Dover trial that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that intelligent design creationism is religion, not science? Dr. Padian, an actual scientist who is a museum curator, testified about transitional fossils, of which there are many. A transcript of his sworn testimony (which was not rebutted), with the slideshow he used, is available at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp

The Dover trial judge included this statement in his decision: "…Dr. Padian's demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas (a bogus creationist "biology textbook") systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles."

Would you rather believe Babu's article, or Dr. Barbara Forrest's paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals," available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf ? As a Professor of Philosophy, Dr. Forrest is a nationally-recognized expert and public speaker on intelligent design creationism, and understands it far better than Babu.

Rcollins wrote: "More voices like his need to be heard especially in the public schools." They were, recently, in Florida. The state is adding the word "evolution" to the educational standards, and some county's School Boards passed "Voluntary Ignorance Resolutions" condemning evolution. Unfortunately, it was pointed out in the subsequent hearings that these were the very counties with the lowest test scores in the state. They had, indeed, drunk too deep of their own Kool-Aid.

But, as you wish, their voices, echoing Babu's and your ignorance of evolution and biology and science were indeed fairly heard…and rejected. Luckily for the innocent school children, their educational needs for the 21st century were addressed.

You’re right, of course. Those emotionally wedded to a certain point of view aren’t interested in reasoned debate. Amusingly, some folks like Burnett and freelunch have no sense of proportion either. It’s never enough that a majority of people agree with their beliefs, although the majority doesn’t always agree with their rhetoric or advocacy tactics – everyone must agree with them or the tantrums start.

Intelligent design theory and the Discovery Institute are a tribute to our country’s tolerance of free speech and open debate. The Discovery Institute occupies a single office in a Seattle office building and depends on private funding to carry out its research. While I don’t agree that intelligent design theory has much explanatory power, I have to admire the scholars engaged in a David vs. Goliath battle of concepts and beliefs. Arrayed against them is the combined might of the practical and academic scientific community able to draw on massive taxpayer funding of evolution research provided by the government courtesy of the National Institutes of Health, the Smithsonian – even NASA. Seems like a one sided battle with David doomed to go down to ignominious defeat. But, intelligent design continually gains converts among scientists and non-scientists alike.

The reason, in part, for their limited success has been their rebuttal of evolution’s myths and “just-so” stories, carried out within a dispassionate and objective debate. The lunkheads defending evolution within the scientific establishment have responded with smear tactics, ad hominem attacks, threats against an individual’s livelihood and future career, active and often successful actions in taking away a dissenter’s current job and so forth. Americans have no tolerance for Muslim fanatics who kill or attempt to kill authors or cartoonists who, they claim, defamed the tenets of Islam. Yet, evolution’s supporters fail to see the similarity between their own actions and the actions of these few terrorists. There may be a difference in the degree of physical reprisal between the Muslim terrorists and evolution’s true believers, but there is no difference in the emotional fanaticism that fosters it.

I don’t like either group and wish them anything but well. Your efforts to initiate reasoned debate demonstrate, by way of contrast, the difference between intellect and emotionalism. Keep it up please. I also think the collective efforts of present and future scientists will eventually result in a much more explanatory theory of historic biological development than the pseudo-science of evolution, but definitely not in our lifetimes.

Common descent explains this, and many other similar things, handily. I'm still waiting on an ID explanation. Can you point me to one?

And of the criteria you listed – which ones does evolution 'fail', and in what way? I've just pointed out an example of how it's testable, falsifiable, and useful in making predictions…