So, do you have any reason to believe that ID supporters will not tolerate those who disagree with them? You are being tolerated here, aren’t you?

In any case, I get it. You feel a great sense of urgency that the ID community may someday gain power and tyrannize the Darwinist community, even though you have no evidence to support those concerns. On the other hand, you are not overly concerned that the Darwinist community already has power and tyrannizes the ID community daily, even though you have been given abundant confirmations of that fact.

ID is as ready as chance & necessity. Maybe more. We can at least prove that intelligent agents can cause complex specified information to appear where none existed before.

Look at it like a murder case where we need to show means and opportunity.

Chance & necessity – we can show opportunity but not means. In other words, we can place the alleded perpetrator at the scene of the crime but we can’t prove it had the means to commit the crime.

Intelligent design – we can means but not opportunity. In other words, we can show that intelligent designers can cause highly improbable specified changes to heritable genetic material but we can’t prove the perpetrator was at the scene of the crime.

As far as I’m concerned that puts chance & necessity and intelligent design on equal footing. Preferring one over the other is a matter of dogma not science.

Plus the assertion that for a scientific theory to be falsified requires a replacement theory is a dog that doesn’t hunt. That is not part of any philosophy of science that I ever heard of. It’s a lame assertion made by chance worshippers and nothing more.

ID is not ready, and I think we all know that. My point is that it getting even more people on board will not make ID more ready. The only way to do that is focus on the realm of creative ideas and furthuring science, not on propaganda objectives.

Regarding freedom of expression, that’s exactly what I’m worried about. I’m worried about tyranny of Darwinism being replaced with tyranny of ID or whatever. Science and humanity will gain nothing by replacing one form of indoctrination with another.

“It is one thing to have the majority on our side, which we do. It is quite another thing to be liberated from the tyrants who have the power to discredit our scientists and ruin their careers.”

Actually the advantage in the former area can very easily lead to the advantage in the latter. Raise funding for private scientific enterprise. Doing that would require a massive amount of money and minds, all focused on making discoveries rather than lecturing 8 year olds and insisting how right we are.

1. Gear ID toward the youth

Indeed. Preferably like soon to be EXPELLED John Freshwater did.

Understand, the age of the Earth and Universe is an empirical, theoretical, and historical question. It does not have to be a theological question!

If this simple question about reality is answered for a shorter time frame than say 100,000,000 years (not even 10,000), then Darwinism is toast!

To that end, when I was at GMU, there was some discontent about mainstream cosmology. The question was, “how can gravity assemble stars and galaxies”. At least 3 professors and the chair of our Center for Space and Earth Observation, a PhD from MIT by the name of Menas Kafatos, beleived, gravity did not assemble stars and galaxies, but rather electricity!!!

I’m now convinced gravity did not assemble stars and galaxies. God used electricity, not gravity!!!

Maxwell’s equations deal with electricity and magnetism and light. These developments are friendly to YEC, because if the speed of light were faster in the past, a plasma cosmology could assemble stars and galaxies in a matter of hours — and any development friendly to YEC is friendly to ID.

See:
Plasma Cosmology Rocks!

If the TE’s want some bloodletting, what will happen if in addition to their new foes (the ID proponents), their old foes (the YECs) re-join the battle. Whoa!

ID advocates celebrate freedom of expression, employ a legitimate scientific methodology, and go where the evidence leads. Darwinists deplore freedom of expression, impose an unduly restrictive process, and ignore evidence that does’t support their ideology.

While I don’t accept creation science, I don’t think that it is nearly so ridiculous as radical Darwinism. To propose that God created the world in seven days is less laughable than to propose that everything created itself.

So if school children are laughing about creation science, it is because Darwinists have brainwashed them in materialistic ethics. That means that we need to educate the next generation of children to refrain brainwashing the generation that follows them. That way they won’t shut down ID labs, withhold research funds, and, at the same time, demand to know why more research isn’t being done.

It is one thing to have the majority on our side, which we do. It is quite another thing to be liberated from the tyrants who have the power to discredit our scientists and ruin their careers. It should not be necessary to come up with some new scientific breakthrough as a means of winning back our freedom of expression. If anything, that is putting the cart before the horse.

The only thing that appears to be possible at this point in time is teaching the scientific weakness of evolution by chance & necessity – God knows it’s incredibly weak and getting weaker every day.

Who now?

PS I am led to understand “God knows” is a religion-neutral idiom. I just thought it was funny given your astute observation abouthow design should be taught.