I just heard an NPR piece about mothers and daughters that made the relationship sound torturous, but one we should cherish anyway. Which is to say, daughters should let mothers nag. Pretty horrible. Luckily my mother has never criticised my clothing other than wondering why I never liked what she tried to buy me. She did weight nag, and has worried about that for years, with various degrees of justification. As for my hair (the third part of the nag trinity) she has long questioned my psychological motivation for my hair. I think she thinks it looks good-she worries about what it means.

Are mothers supposed to be excused for that sort of hassling?

Unrelatedly, I'm one of the most made up women in the room. Lip gloss.

I think that many of the ID folks are saying what they think they can get away with, not what they believe. And that a lot of them don't fully understand what the core theories say, they're just attracted to the idea because they think it disproves Darwinism.

This is ad hominem though. The problem that creationists use ID theory to advance creationism is separate from the problems with the ID theory itself.

The problem that creationists use ID theory to advance creationism is separate from the problems with the ID theory itself.

Hmm. That seems to presuppose that the ID theory has a legitimacy outside of the creationism advancing agenda, no? I'm not sure I'm convinced of that.

One has to distinguish legitimacy from truth, right? I don't think one should assume that ID has no independent validity but rather argue the point.

This is ad hominem though. The problem that creationists use ID theory to advance creationism is separate from the problems with the ID theory itself.

It's always good to guard against ad hominem argument, but it's very difficult to escape in the case of ID. I mean, it's scarcely possible that anyone who ever took a human anatomy class really believes that we were designed by an intelligent creator. A dimwitted creator, maybe, or perhaps a creator who started celebrating too early in the week of creation and was too hung over to finish the job.

So when you see someone with a Ph.D. in Biology arguing for ID it is natural to assume that they are doing so cynically and without really believing it. It may not be true. They could be demented or psychotic. Who knows?

I really don't have much of a problem with ID theory. In the long run, I think it will have a positive benefit on science, even if it is proven wrong.

I'm attacking the ID supporters be cause they are the problem. They're the ones trying to shove this theory down our throats without it being fully vetted, and that takes a long time. It took decades for plate tectonics to be accepted as fact.

There's also the history of the ID movement to consider. The Discovery Institute tries very hard to brush their creationist origins under the rug, but it's impossible to look at the timeline and not realize that "Intelligent Design" is nothing but a clever marketing term.

The Discovery Institute has been on the forefront of the struggle to promote ID. A few years back, they created a document titled "The Wedge", which detailed their goals. Here are their goals for 20 years after the writing of the document:

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. · To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. · To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

eta: [link]

More on "The Wedge" - this is by Judge Jones in his decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover:

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.

[link]

I really don't have much of a problem with ID theory. In the long run, I think it will have a positive benefit on science, even if it is proven wrong.

I don't have a problem with ID either, but it's not science and shouldn't be treated as such. I think it's fine if people believe that there is a supernatural entity guiding the course of evolution and doing the really complicated stuff, and it's a pretty sensible way to reconcile religion and science. However, it's not something that be proven or disproven, so it really doesn't belong in the realm of science.