can you back this up with documents? And does sponsorship mean absolute conformance?
Sure… All it means is that Its not a purely US based movement and hence the arguments for/against it cannot be confined to American legal interpretations and such.
I am making a limited point here in response to your claim about School systems and such.
This is a good point… You should stick to saying why this is so… instead of harping on school syllabus and such IMO.
Maybe you can start a post giving clear reasons for why ID is not science according to the main stream Science community. I am sure it will be educational and well appreciated.
I agree the Kitzmiller ruling only applies to U.S. schools. The rest of the world, like the IDers in the U.S., are free to publish their positive evidence for ID anytime and anywhere they like. Scientific journals would be fighting over such evidence if it was credible. Anyone submitting such evidence would be a shoo-in for the Nobel Prize. What’s stopping them?
ID as presented now makes no testable predictions which are unique to and arise from ID.
ID as presented now is not falsifiable
What has to happen is some brave IDer has to hypothesize about the abilities and limitations of the Designer. Then they have to start coming up with some testable predictions about the specifics of “Design” - the mechanisms used, the timelines, the how, when, where, and by who questions every other science tries to answer. IDers are reluctant since virtually all of them hypothesize the Designer to be their omnipotent God.
Ya… but that doesn’t mean they supplied money in addition to free publicity and perhaps an endorsement. Why make claims you cannot substantiate?
I for one would love a reasoned new post from you which gives a reasoned argument as to why ID is not Science without relying on rhetoric.
I am sure, it will foster understanding even if it doesn’t lead to agreement.
I saw it and appreciate your points…
what i had in mind was a new post (i.e one without the heading “Is ID like Scientology” and a more detailed argument with examples to which the ID scientists here can respond if they wish to.
If they don’t, you still have a post you can point to whenever the Question
“is ID science ?” comes up. I am sure @Patrick would love it.
ID proponents can respond to the points I just made right here if they wish. I bet no ID “scientists” respond though. All they can do is argue against accepted evolutionary theory. Providing positive evidence for their own claims is an alien concept.
The problem with this particular corner of the site is that its not very visible. Who in their right mind is going to take something with the heading “is Intelligent design like scientology” seriously enough to browse through all the posts and reach yours?
If ID wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community they’ll start doing the actual science on their own. But they won’t. ID is a religiously motivated political movement whose goal is to convince laymen, not the scientific community.