Quote
Quote
I.D. is most accurately described as a philosophy of science. It is compatible with nearly anything aside from atheism.

Quote
Earlier you argued about I.D.'s relationship with creationism. Now you question its relationship with religion.

I think it's clear from the example I gave here, plus countless others on the internet, that Of Pandas and People was originally a creationist book that underwent some slight revisions, .e.g replacing the word "creationist" with "intelligent design." Are you now claiming that creationism has nothing to do with religion?
See my "strict" definition of creation science. The book was intended for use in schools as a science text. Therefore it was not written to promote any religion, but to teach science.

The fact that some religions are compatible with legitimate science does not invalidate the science or the teaching thereof. I haven't read the book, but I understand it's been carefully inspected by evolutionists, and this is the best you can come up with to link it to religion: guilt by association. Well, you need to throw out a whole lot of other sciences in that case! I don't know any type of science which isn't accepted by some member of some religion.

Quote
The authors of Of Pandas and People were a fundamentalist Christian group in Texas. The vast majority of creationists in the world are fundamentalist Christians, though there is a small group of fundamentalist Muslims who believe their own version.
Oops! I overshot & responded to this above.

Quote
You also seem to be claiming above that creationism is legitimate science. Science is an empirical method of testable observations. Please suggest some empirical tests to me that would be comaptible with "creation science."
Ever read Mendel on genetics? Really, any empirical test is compatible with creation science, although those based on flawed or unwarranted assumptions may be of little use.

Quote
How would you test for things being "designed"?
Here's how.
Quote
Arguments from incredulity (i.e. "this organism/organ/system etc etc is too complex to have evolved, therefore it was created") are not testable hypotheses.
But "this X is too complex, based upon a, b, c" is not incredulity.

These arguments need to be countered by something more than blind faith a.k.a. credulity. The abiogenesis thread was still open last time I checked...

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