[sprite]

On Tuesday July 28th Coast to Coast AM will interview Stephen C. Meyer, an associate of the Discovery Institute. They will be discussing the recent discoveries in cell biology which support intelligent design and may reveal that digital computers and living cells are operating on the same principles.
I've been reading their website and find it quite intriguing. If anyone else is interested go to Discovery.org and/or tune in to Coast to Coast AM.

[Uber Geek]

Intelligent design is just creationism under a new name, as per the Discovery Institute's own document, "The Wedge Strategy".

It's a method of pushing Christianity into science. It's something where the two should never meet, since each have their own domain of knowledge. It also violates the a priori of science: Everything must be testable and disprovable. Science proves nothing, only attempts to disprove.

However, with Intelligent Design, the opposite approach is used: Take a hypothesis and attempt to prove it in every way. However, the ID movement fails to answer basic questions, such as "Who is the Designer"? That is until you look at their documents and it becomes clear: The designer is the Christian God.

[bking]

Intelligent design is just creationism under a new name, as per the Discovery Institute's own document, "The Wedge Strategy".

It's a method of pushing Christianity into science. It's something where the two should never meet, since each have their own domain of knowledge. It also violates the a priori of science: Everything must be testable and disprovable. Science proves nothing, only attempts to disprove.

However, with Intelligent Design, the opposite approach is used: Take a hypothesis and attempt to prove it in every way. However, the ID movement fails to answer basic questions, such as "Who is the Designer"? That is until you look at their documents and it becomes clear: The designer is the Christian God.

I don't think that ID is just creationism under a new name. I read the Wedge Document and what I got was that they were just trying to get their worldview acknowledged because it is so adamantly opposed in the scientific community. They call it something different because it is something different. They're trying to prove scientifically design or engineering in the cell and they make very informed arguments. From what I've been hearing they have some compelling evidence to support their hypothesis. Is this not scientific? They would in no way be able to prove the designer but that there was a designer and not a chance occurrence. I don't agree that belief and science should not meet. If there is scientific evidence to prove design I say so be it, why is it so threatening?

[Uber Geek]

I don't think that ID is just creationism under a new name. I read the Wedge Document and what I got was that they were just trying to get their worldview acknowledged because it is so adamantly opposed in the scientific community. They call it something different because it is something different. They're trying to prove scientifically design or engineering in the cell and they make very informed arguments. From what I've been hearing they have some compelling evidence to support their hypothesis. Is this not scientific? They would in no way be able to prove the designer but that there was a designer and not a chance occurrence. I don't agree that belief and science should not meet. If there is scientific evidence to prove design I say so be it, why is it so threatening?

You must have read a different document then:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

The Wedge Strategy, © 1998 by The Discovery Institute

Creationism in a new name. Plain and simple. And no, it's not scientific. It's an "argument from ignorance". We don't know what caused X, therefore it was caused by Y.

This post has been edited by Uber Geek: Jul 27 2009, 02:57 PM

[Uber Geek]

Almost forgot this part too:

"reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions...and to affirm the reality of God...to renew American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values"

Again, taken straight from The Wedge Strategy document.

Sounds like creationism under a new name. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled it as such in Dover vs. Kitzmiller.

[sprite]

On Tuesday July 28th Coast to Coast AM will interview Stephen C. Meyer, an associate of the Discovery Institute. They will be discussing the recent discoveries in cell biology which support intelligent design and may reveal that digital computers and living cells are operating on the same principles.
I've been reading their website and find it quite intriguing. If anyone else is interested go to Discovery.org and/or tune in to Coast to Coast AM.

UPDATE: (the following was added 16hrs after origional post)


This is not, I repeat, NOT a slam on anyone's religious beliefs. This is just my humble opinion. I'm here to learn, and this is a sounding board, forum to voice and discuss my opinions etc... I mean no harm to anyone. I enjoy these conversations. Thats why I'm here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/doofywave.gif) Hopefully, everyone on this forum is seeking more than what we are told to "believe" by the mainstream media (this includes any public/scholared opinion). I'm seeking and gathering information to analyze the logistics of the paranormal or unknown.

I was raised with a bible in the house. My grandma read a chapter or so every day. She once told me that she was on her 3rd time through it. I went to Church Camp every summer from age 8-14. That was 6 summers of the worst torture I've ever been through, inflicted by adults and kids both.
The adults were oblivious to the "social attitude" of the children in their charge. The children were either bullies or being bullied. I couldn't trust anyone. Gossip ran rampid, and mean tricks were played (I'm not here to complain about my childhood). The hostilities I've endured at camps that I was put into each summer could be one of my most "fearful" experiences. For me, it was worse than the public school I went to. I liked my school.

You see, I do believe in a God, just not the "biblical" God. IMHO there is intelligent design screaming "God Was Here". God's true nature (existance) is imbedded within the mathmatical formulas and quantum theories. Math is the universal language. Formulas represent patterns. Fractals, one of many formulas, prove this pattern time and again. Check out "Fractals" and see if you can't find infinity.

Look up into the night's sky and begin to count the patterns you see. When you get tired of this, go back inside and log onto the Hubble website and start counting the patterns of universes you actually see for yourself, one by one (not looking at the jpg counters). When you get tired of that, take a deep breath and realize that you have just experienced two Quantum Demensions of the same thing... ie... The Stars in the sky, and The Universes in the Heavens. Think about the possibility that Mathmatics can lead us closer to God. Quantum theories are the cutting edge of creating new and wonderful "formulas" to explore. IMHO Mathmatics is the fingerprints of God
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/giggle.gif)

This post has been edited by sprite: Jul 27 2009, 10:27 PM

[cinnindeagh]

Sprite,

You should do some reading about the golden ratio. It's interesting stuff and certainly raises some questions.

I agree with UberGeek. Intelligent Design arguments are simply a change in marketing and public relations. Because the term creationism began taking on such a negative connotation, they began using a phrase that sounded more neutral--Intelligent Design.

They're selling a theory--not looking for the truth. Heck all you have to do is read the Wedge paper. It's extraordinarily biased in its style and presentation. That alone is reason enough to question its validity.

[sprite]

Sprite,

You should do some reading about the golden ratio. It's interesting stuff and certainly raises some questions.

I agree with UberGeek. Intelligent Design arguments are simply a change in marketing and public relations. Because the term creationism began taking on such a negative connotation, they began using a phrase that sounded more neutral--Intelligent Design.

They're selling a theory--not looking for the truth. Heck all you have to do is read the Wedge paper. It's extraordinarily biased in its style and presentation. That alone is reason enough to question its validity.

OK... I'm reading about the "Wedge Strategy" or "Wedge Report" or the "Trojan Horse of the Wedge Report". I'm learning here, and more than willing to admit if I'm wrong. So far "Wedge" seems to relate to a wedge put between two beliefs, and not about the actual mechanisms of Intelligent Design.
In my mind Mathmatics and Energy are pretty much in charge of everything we are. I trust there is a God, just not the one depicted in any of the religious text. Too many have died in the name of the biblical God already. I will not trust in war for peace. As I said I'm learning, so I could be wrong about this particular defination of Intelligent Design... So far though, I haven't really read anything more than arguments about its validity. I plan to listen to the radio show to see if the theory is explained in more detail.
Thanks.

This post has been edited by sprite: Jul 28 2009, 04:46 AM

[Uber Geek]

OK... I'm reading about the "Wedge Strategy" or "Wedge Report" or the "Trojan Horse of the Wedge Report". I'm learning here, and more than willing to admit if I'm wrong. So far "Wedge" seems to relate to a wedge put between two beliefs, and not about the actual mechanisms of Intelligent Design.
In my mind Mathmatics and Energy are pretty much in charge of everything we are. I trust there is a God, just not the one depicted in any of the religious text. Too many have died in the name of the biblical God already. I will not trust in war for peace. As I said I'm learning, so I could be wrong about this particular defination of Intelligent Design... So far though, I haven't really read anything more than arguments about its validity. I plan to listen to the radio show to see if the theory is explained in more detail.
Thanks.

Intelligent Design was the new strategy to get creationism into schools. It was needed since the Scopes trial knocked creationism out of schools as being non-science.

So, the Discovery Institute put together a new plan to get the system of science we know now to be replaced with "Intelligent Design", leaving out who the "Intelligent Designer" was as a way of leaving the back door of "We're not saying it was god or anything..." Their newer strategy is "Teach the controversy" about evolution, when in fact there really is no controversy.

So, in reality, the Discovery Institute wants to replace the basics of science with something else. Rather than leaving the "I don't know" answer, and replacing it with "God did it."

Case in point, all ID proponents will say,"We can't see how we made the jump from ambiogenensis into cellular life, so is had an Intelligent Designer." When, science currently says, "We can't see how we made the jump, so we just don't know." It changes the complete a priori that science uses, which is "We know nothing" and replaces it with "God designed it."

And, one of the major proponents Dr. Behe has received less praise for his work and more criticism than Dr. Ian Stevenson. Dr. Stevenson at least remained repsected in his field, Dr. Behe has become a laughing stock since most of his arguments are based on logical fallacies. The primary one being ad ignorantiam, followed closely by ad hoc ergo propter hoc. And the ones not based on logical fallacy have already been disproved (ie the flagellum, blood clotting, eye design, etc). I especially like how he declared that Pandas have thumbs that are designed just like ours (Not really, it's a bone extension).

[Antepilani ab De...]

I think that evolution and God can co-exist. While mainstream science may ultimately find scientific proof of a universal consciousness (a la quantum phsyics), the "Intelligent Designers" seem to want to fit science into their preconceived notions of a Christian God. Of course, maybe the human brain/psyche is not designed or is powerful enough to truly understand an eternal divine singularity.

This post has been edited by Antepilani ab Deus: Jul 28 2009, 09:31 AM

[bking]

I don't think that ID is just creationism under a new name. I read the Wedge Document and what I got was that they were just trying to get their worldview acknowledged because it is so adamantly opposed in the scientific community. They call it something different because it is something different. They're trying to prove scientifically design or engineering in the cell and they make very informed arguments. From what I've been hearing they have some compelling evidence to support their hypothesis. Is this not scientific? They would in no way be able to prove the designer but that there was a designer and not a chance occurrence. I don't agree that belief and science should not meet. If there is scientific evidence to prove design I say so be it, why is it so threatening?

You must have read a different document then:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

The Wedge Strategy, © 1998 by The Discovery Institute

Creationism in a new name. Plain and simple. And no, it's not scientific. It's an "argument from ignorance". We don't know what caused X, therefore it was caused by Y.

No, I read the same paper and I don't understand what the problem is. Just because he has a held belief means he's unintelligent, uninformed and ignorant? He has valid arguments regardless of the "wedge document". Intelligent design and creationism is not the same thing. ID definition is "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence". Creationism’s definition is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Sorry, not the same thing. ID could end up pointing to design by an alien life form from another planet. It's scientific and it's valid IMO. Many people seem to be bias regardless of evidence.


A quote from Stephen C. Meyer,

“DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that information - whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio signals - always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed: "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.

Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.

Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.

Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

[cinnindeagh]

Bking,

I have to respectfully disagree with you. The Discovery Institute is mired in creationist issues and always has been. They've simply changed the moniker.

Here's a video regarding their input into legal cases about teaching creationism in schools.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGpBu8mmahU

Do a search on them in youtube and watch them. There's a difference between spinning something to sound new and offering up hard scientific evidence. It's an ad campaign--and apparently its selling quite well.

[Uber Geek]

No, I read the same paper and I don't understand what the problem is. Just because he has a held belief means he's unintelligent, uninformed and ignorant? He has valid arguments regardless of the "wedge document". Intelligent design and creationism is not the same thing. ID definition is "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence". Creationism’s definition is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Sorry, not the same thing. ID could end up pointing to design by an alien life form from another planet. It's scientific and it's valid IMO. Many people seem to be bias regardless of evidence.


A quote from Stephen C. Meyer,

“DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know that information - whether, say, in hieroglyphics or radio signals - always arises from an intelligent source. As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed: "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." So the discovery of digital information in DNA provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a causal role in its origin.

Thus, ID is not based on religion, but on scientific discoveries and our experience of cause and effect, the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. Unlike creationism, ID is an inference from biological data.

Even so, ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. Those who do confuse the evidence for the theory with its possible implications. Many astrophysicists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to point to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But science eventually accepted it because the evidence strongly supported it.

Today, a similar prejudice confronts ID. Nevertheless, this new theory must also be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not philosophical preferences. As Professor Flew advises: "We must follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

It is not science. To be a scientific theory, it must be testable. And the existence of a deity or any other designer is not testable nor disprovable. Those are the bedrock foundations of science.

ID has no evidence of an Intelligent Designer. All of them have been debunked and explained. By changing the a priori of what science is, you no longer have science.

ID is an argument from ignorance. We don't know what causes X, therefore it is caused by Y. Science does not work like that.

And, I am sorry you think ID is not creationism, but our courts of law in the United States have seen the evidence, and ruled that it is. Case closed, unless you would like to appeal it?

[Antepilani ab De...]

No, I read the same paper and I don't understand what the problem is. Just because he has a held belief means he's unintelligent, uninformed and ignorant? He has valid arguments regardless of the "wedge document". Intelligent design and creationism is not the same thing. ID definition is "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence". Creationism’s definition is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Sorry, not the same thing. ID could end up pointing to design by an alien life form from another planet. It's scientific and it's valid IMO. Many people seem to be bias regardless of evidence.

The key evidence in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, was the unearthing of early manuscripts of the text book in question that had over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", which were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".

Regardless, the reason that Intelligent Design is junk science is because that it presuposes an outcome (the existence of God) without testing its liklihood by scientific means. Keep in mind that science does not say that there is no God, rather that it has not been proven by scientific means. For the record, I believe in God but that is a matter of my personal faith and is something that I cannot prove or disprove via scientific means.

[Uber Geek]

The key evidence in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, was the unearthing of early manuscripts of the text book in question that had over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", which were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".

Regardless, the reason that Intelligent Design is junk science is because that it presuposes an outcome (the existence of God) without testing its liklihood by scientific means. Keep in mind that science does not say that there is no God, rather that it has not been proven by scientific means. For the record, I believe in God but that is a matter of my personal faith and is something that I cannot prove or disprove via scientific means.

Exactly! Religion and Science are both seeking Truth™. However, the domain of truth they cover are different. Hence the entire concept of Non-Overlapping Magesterias as proposed by Gould. Never the two shall meet, and if one attempts to, they are either practicing junk science, or junk religion.

[bking]

No, I read the same paper and I don't understand what the problem is. Just because he has a held belief means he's unintelligent, uninformed and ignorant? He has valid arguments regardless of the "wedge document". Intelligent design and creationism is not the same thing. ID definition is "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence". Creationism’s definition is "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis". Sorry, not the same thing. ID could end up pointing to design by an alien life form from another planet. It's scientific and it's valid IMO. Many people seem to be bias regardless of evidence.

The key evidence in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, was the unearthing of early manuscripts of the text book in question that had over one hundred uses of the root word "creation", such as "creationism" and "creation science", which were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design", while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists".

Regardless, the reason that Intelligent Design is junk science is because that it presuposes an outcome (the existence of God) without testing its liklihood by scientific means. Keep in mind that science does not say that there is no God, rather that it has not been proven by scientific means. For the record, I believe in God but that is a matter of my personal faith and is something that I cannot prove or disprove via scientific means.

I wouldn't go as far as to pass it off as junk science but I can see the point that some of the ID researchers may be jumping the gun to say that where Darwinism is falling short automatically points to design but they do give some compelling arguments. I'm not sure if you have read any of Steven Meyer's papers but he makes valid points. I'm not saying that I agree with all aspects of his research but I don't think it should be entirely discounted either because of a creationist background. Because of that fact I think that is all anyone sees in his research and he is always going to encounter bias from his peers.

[Uber Geek]

I wouldn't go as far as to pass it off as junk science but I can see the point that some of the ID researchers may be jumping the gun to say that where Darwinism is falling short automatically points to design but they do give some compelling arguments. I'm not sure if you have read any of Steven Meyer's papers but he makes valid points. I'm not saying that I agree with all aspects of his research but I don't think it should be entirely discounted either because of a creationist background. Because of that fact I think that is all anyone sees in his research and he is always going to encounter bias from his peers.

It is junk science. I'm however open minded, and will change my mind if you can design an experiment to test the theory of a designer, and post the experiment (We don't need the results yet) here.

I'll wait.

This post has been edited by Uber Geek: Jul 28 2009, 12:21 PM

[bking]

I wouldn't go as far as to pass it off as junk science but I can see the point that some of the ID researchers may be jumping the gun to say that where Darwinism is falling short automatically points to design but they do give some compelling arguments. I'm not sure if you have read any of Steven Meyer's papers but he makes valid points. I'm not saying that I agree with all aspects of his research but I don't think it should be entirely discounted either because of a creationist background. Because of that fact I think that is all anyone sees in his research and he is always going to encounter bias from his peers.

It is junk science. I'm however open minded, and will change my mind if you can design an experiment to test the theory of a designer, and post the experiment (We don't need the results yet) here.

I'll wait.

You don't have to get snide, If you don't agree with it you don't agree with it. I'm not a scientist but maybe post that question to Stephen Meyer or any other ID researcher. They might come up with something. But like I said before would it really matter if they did? It's always met with anger or laughter. Even though evolution falls short it's scientific fallacy to research a different avenue.

[Uber Geek]

You don't have to get snide, If you don't agree with it you don't agree with it. I'm not a scientist but maybe post that question to Stephen Meyer or any other ID researcher. They might come up with something. But like I said before would it really matter if they did? It's always met with anger or laughter. Even though evolution falls short it's scientific fallacy to research a different avenue.

Not snide. You claim that ID is not junk science. I offered a litmus test for a true scientific theory. The same thing has been posed to all of the ID proponents, and they have offered naught.

Evolution as a whole does not fall short. Mechanisms of it might, but any biologist agrees that evolution did in fact occur. It's the small parts of "how" that are subject to debate right now.

And it would matter if they did put forth something like that, other than vague concepts of "Irreducible complexity" or "Fine-tuned universe". If they put forth substantive theories, rather than junk science they wouldn't be laughed at.

And it is not scientific fallacy to study other avenues. But the onus remains on the person suggesting a fringe theory to provide supportive research of it, not the other way around. By trying to put the onus on the people working in the main circles of science, it's called "Shifting the burden of proof".

So, to put it bluntly, to approach the topic assuming there is an intelligent designer, then working from there is what makes it a junk science. To use the words of a scientist here, "It's not right. It's not even wrong."

[Antepilani ab De...]

I wouldn't go as far as to pass it off as junk science but I can see the point that some of the ID researchers may be jumping the gun to say that where Darwinism is falling short automatically points to design but they do give some compelling arguments. I'm not sure if you have read any of Steven Meyer's papers but he makes valid points. I'm not saying that I agree with all aspects of his research but I don't think it should be entirely discounted either because of a creationist background. Because of that fact I think that is all anyone sees in his research and he is always going to encounter bias from his peers.

It is junk science. I'm however open minded, and will change my mind if you can design an experiment to test the theory of a designer, and post the experiment (We don't need the results yet) here.

I'll wait.

You don't have to get snide, If you don't agree with it you don't agree with it. I'm not a scientist but maybe post that question to Stephen Meyer or any other ID researcher. They might come up with something. But like I said before would it really matter if they did? It's always met with anger or laughter. Even though evolution falls short it's scientific fallacy to research a different avenue.

There is a difference in pointing out gaps in the fossil record, or challenging Darwinism on the specifics, and trying to change the basic tenants of the scientific method.