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.

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.

That's odd. I personally know more than a dozen physicians who, in fact, believe just that. I'd be careful tossing the generalities around.

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.

Generally, yes, but in this case, it's not the truth of the "theory" that's suspect (not for the point I'm making) but it the legitimacy of the the theory as an independent belief - does ID have any purpose, any *existence*, outside of the creationist agenda? I don't think it does - others have made this point so I won't belabor it - and it's history suggests that that's the case.

No previous experience in audits, but hey! he was an ethics lawyer for the White House General Counsel during this admin!

Which is awful and cronytastic and forehead-smacky in lots of ways, but not plain fucking stupid in the same way as putting a bald-faced lie on your resumé about graduating from a place you didn't graduate from. It was an ER plot twist from, like, fifty years ago or something!

I'm all sad about the total and utter tainting of the term "Intelligent Design;" when I first heard it several long years ago, it sounded like a perfectly decent descriptor of people who both believe in God and are down with the Big Bang and evolution and all that smart thinky-people stuff, and now it's just another weapon of craxy. It'd be nice to have a new, non-loaded term, but I'm askeered the ID folks would just glom onto that one instead and ruin it too. Apparently the wisest rule for people who are theo-evolutiono-thinkist is the Fight Club rule.