Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

I agree that ID is not science. No argument there.And, yes, it is because of the way science is defined--by scientists. (And who better to define science than scientists, eh?)The problem we run into is that believers in various religions try to 1) claim their beliefs are science, 2) try to redefine science to make #1 occur, and 3) misrepresent, distort, and/or ignore real science and mountains of data in furtherance of #1 and #2. This is where ID comes in--as it was clearly born out of the failed creation "science" after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court determined that creation "science" was religion in disguise. ID is religion lite in an effort to hide the religion! But if you look at the facts you will not find ID movements in Muslim or Hindu countries. And if you challenge IDers you will find that they abhor Muslim and Hindu beliefs (and the beliefs of the other 4,000+ world religions). ID wasn't hatched to promote those beliefs!ID was hatched to promote fundamentalist Christian beliefs after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision exposed creation "science" as all creation and no science.The cdesign proponentsists problem in The Panda's Thumb and the federal district court's Dover decision settled the issue of ID and its origins once and for all.And the primary claim of ID that could be tested by science--irreducible complexity--was falsified!Finally--its not that "creationists and proponents of intelligent design are outnumbered on this forum." Its that they have been unable to bring scientific evidence to these debates. (See tagline.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I followed the link and read the second sentence. It does not seem to apply to what we are discussing. The natural conclusion of this is that ID was hatched to promote fundamentalist Christian beliefs. No other religions have come up with ID, or needed to. You can talk about religion and intelligent design all you want.My comment just equated the two as a scheme by creationists to sneak creation "science" back into the schools after the Edwards vs. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.That scheme didn't fool anyone, and the Dover decision by a federal district court made it clear that ID and religion were intimately linked.Where I have a problem is when folks try to pass their religious beliefs off as science when those beliefs are flatly contradicted by science (for example, young earth and global flood), and when folks try to get those beliefs taught in the schools in the under the false pretense that they are science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

So you find the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution inadequate, and rely instead on an explanation without any supporting evidence?No wonder they call it creation "science!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I've been sitting this out for a while.ID is religion lite, with the serial numbers filed off in hopes of fooling the unwary. There is no body of evidence supporting it, just belief.Claims to the contrary are welcome--but must be accompanied by evidence. (But beware the lesson of Behe at Dover.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

There's a sucker born every minute??(Usually attributed to P.T. Barnum but it actually originated with David Hannum.) Source

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That's easy. Here is a nice online lecture that shows how these genetic networks are robust, and not at all as creationists describe: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (online lecture)

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Did you watch the video?Did you even consider watching the video?Or do you just know it's all wrong without watching it?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I provided it in the video you didn't watch.But then the purpose of creation "science" is to ignore, deny, or misrepresent data. Business as usual.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.