“And if you read this site, is the impression one gets much different. About 2/3 (my subjective impression) of the threads include religious discussions of something with quotes from the bible frequently sprinkled throughout.”

Granted, but I think you’ll find the same association with atheism on a lot of pro-orthodoxy (rather, Darwinian orthodoxy) sites, especially in the comments section.

I don’t think anyone denies that the ID v Darwinism fight has religious motivation for many. The key is realizing that many in the opposition have religious motivation as well; they cannot accept that seeing intention and design in the history of life is plausible. Not because it’s been ruled out by science (on the contrary), but for personal reasons. In a way, I view the attitude towards ID as similar to the attitude towards the Big Bang, or QM, in the early days of those theories – the opposition was many times based on philosophical, even (a)theological considerations, though they’d rally science when they could.

“I would say that ID is deeply rooted in simple observation: what is seen”

Bravo!

And if you read this site, is the impression one gets much different. About 2/3 (my subjective impression) of the threads include religious discussions of something with quotes from the bible frequently sprinkled throughout.

The vast majority of the scientific world have been told that ID is a US religious movement and I think they believe it. That stops them seriously considering ID.

There is a very interesting and intriguing phenomenon at work here. One must ask, Why is so much effort invested in, and why are so many silly arguments made in defense of, the notion that the universe and living systems are not designed?

The answer to this question, it seems to me, is obvious.

If the designer(s) is not omnipotent, and if, perhaps, all humans (whatever our consciousness is) had a prior existence in some other “life”, we very well may have chosen this earth with all it’s problems for some reason. To learn perhaps? To manifest our nature? Perhaps in rebellion against the designer(s), or maybe as some kind of virtual reality game for supercosmic beings? Who knows. There are all kinds of interesting possibilities. But what is certain, the people who sophomorically rant against a designer(s)do not seem to have spent much time thinking about such things.

It can really only be employed against the idea of an omnipotent benevolent God. Perhaps there is a designer(s) and it is not absolutely omnipotent. (In my thinking, this would have to be the case.) That is enough to deflect criticism. Personally, I prefer to limit the designers power than limit his/their benevolence. But I must limit at least one of them to account for what exists.

It is a hypothesis from an observation for crying out loud. Now, I am no scientist, that’s for sure, but even I can see that if it looks designed, we need to explore whether it is designed. That is what Dr. Dembski’s books are doing.

Just because Satan blinds our eyes to God’s beauty doesn’t mean that he puts up false evidence supporting bizarre ideas like all species originating from a single-celled, chemical reaction that can’t even be defined as life!

If we weren’t trying to prop up a corrupt consumerist economic structure with lies about how science really shows us that there is no right and wrong, darwinism would have no purpose. The whole field of darwinism would wither and die. There would be no food for it.

ID is not an “argument from incredulity” or a “god of the gaps” problem. There are so many things we can’t explain.