Joined: Jan. 2006
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs. But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science. The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.
In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.
And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science. Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.
Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either. It's voodoo. We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.
And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific. They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.
Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.
And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd. So far all the ID "scientists" are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson