Well, let's take a look...
Governing Goals
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
-
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Yeah, it's based on their religious fanaticism.
There really never was a "design theory." It makes no testable predictions, only post-hoc declarations. Which is why it's a religious belief, not a theory.
Do you think
deism is a religion? If they are attempting to inject bible scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion
Christianity. If they are attempting to inject Quranic scripture into a science class, then they would be pushing the specific religion of
Islamic religion. But they of course are suggesting religion as synonymous with Christianity. Deism is not a religion. It's a neutral position. And this shows how confused the plaintiffs are, and why the witchfynder general tactics to cover it's confusion. We see this clearly in the NOVA documentary broadcasted on PBS. To put it nicely, it's a case study of televised theatrics.
When scientists claim they recreated the big bang, created synthetic embryos, and wrote blueprints for creating a mini-universe with life in a laboratory,
this is intelligent design. Not
theistic design, but ID nonetheless. These could theoretically be discussed in a science class. Maybe they are at times. But the problem is would be that if it were, and someone blew the whistle "Hey, isn't this intelligent design?", they've got a sticky mess. It can't be labeled
intelligent design, as just the word
design has now become equivalent to saying
Macbeth in an old English theatre. I've seen the hesitancy in using the term
design in this forum section. Most likely even
human intelligent design in science classrooms would be avoided because they would have to make sure no reference to a higher power were mentioned, and then people would notice the Orwellian paranoia.
I don't care what religion they follow, as long as they don't try to impose it on others in public schools. In fact, there are IDers who seem to have realized this themselves, and while the organization remains opposed to religious freedoms in the Constitution, some IDers have moved away from such a stance.
Michael Denton, for example, seems to have accepted Darwinian evolution, only insisting that a "designer" pre-loaded the universe to make it happen.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs used the IDer's own words to make their case. IDer Michael Behe pretty much gave away the farm during cross-examination:
Q: And using your definition intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A: Yes
Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one.
Transcript from Kitzmiller vs. Dover
Yes, they caught him in kind of a technicality word trap. And the sad thing is that this actually impresses people. It's placing ID and anything affiliated with it in quarantine, and exterminating the room with fire.