Quote
I've been busy doing other things and I am not well. Stopping by here, I'm pretty amazed at the number of claims being made by creationists. I'll maybe discuss a few at a future time. This one stood out particularly though:
I'm hoping your situation improves.

Quote
Quote
I.D. is called "religion" merely for claiming a creator is extremely likely to have been involved. Such a claim doesn't meet too many definitions of the term.

If you are seriously claiming that the intelligent design movement has nothing to do with creationism, I'm afraid you're going to have a difficult time convincing people of this unless you can find some very sound evidence.
Not what I said. I.D. is most accurately described as a philosophy of science. It is compatible with nearly anything aside from atheism.

In strict terms, I'd define Creation Science as a philosophy of science which conforms to the doctrine(s) of creation. It is common to employ the term "creationism" when referencing either the doctrine(s) or the science which is compatible therewith.

Quote
“Q” indicates Eric Rothschild and “A” indicates Jon A. Buell. The book is Of Pandas and People, the supplemental textbook published by FTE, for those who don't know.

Q Actually in this version of the book it describes who creationists are, doesn’t it, if you look at pages 22 and 23 and 24. It says there’s different types of creationist’s literature. There are older [old earth] creationists, younger [young earth] creationists, agnostic creationists, right?

A Yes. We were trying to give some articulation to the breadth of what that term means.

Q And then if you could turn back to page 22, you explain that “Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.” That’s how you defined creation, correct?

A Yes.

Q All right. And I would like to take – you to take a look at an excerpt from Pandas and People. Turn to page 99 in the excerpt I gave you.

A All right.

Q Says, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”

Do you see that?

A I see it.

Q So that’s pretty much the exact same sentence substituting creation for intelligent design, isn’t that right?

A The reason that you find the similarity in the two passages is because this obviously was at a time when we were developing the manuscript. We had not chosen the term “intelligent design” at that point. We were trying to – this was just a place holder term until we came to grips with which of the plausible two or three terms that are in scientific literature we would settle on. And that was the last thing we did before the book was revise – I mean was sent to the publisher.

Q It was creation, creation, creation until the end and then it was intelligent design.


Tell me CTD, how is ID not associated with religion?
You're confusing issues. Earlier you argued about I.D.'s relationship with creationism. Now you question its relationship with religion.

Both creationism and I.D. are compatible with multiple religious doctrines. Since I.D. only concerns itself with the origin of the first life form(s), it is compatible with a wider variety of philosophies and worldviews.

Quote
Also, can you produce any evidence that the creator stipulated by ID is intended to be anything other than the God of the Bible?
I.D. stipulates no specific creator(s). By employing testable scientific hypotheses, I.D. can never provide absolute proof of anything; so the strongest claim available from I.D. would be that one or more creators are extremely likely to have been involved.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson