[Liberty1970]

Intelligent design is just an attempt to develop a scientific method that can detect design. That’s it.

No it's not.

That's exactly what it is, in technical terms. Anyone can read the leading works like Dembski's The Design Inference to see this is bluntly the case. People need to understand that opposition to ID is literally a denial of the existence of engineers and factories. And there are plenty of in-context quotes from Darwinian fundamentalists that, applied consistently, prove this.

Someday some rogue scientist is going to engineer a pathogen and release it. And the NAS and other evolutionary fundamentalist organizations are going to quickly declare that it is illegitimate to believe the organism was modified by an UNKNOWN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, because that would be "religion." At least, that would be the case if they are consistent.

[Filo]

That's exactly what it is, in technical terms. Anyone can read the leading works like Dembski's The Design Inference to see this is bluntly the case. People need to understand that opposition to ID is literally a denial of the existence of engineers and factories. And there are plenty of in-context quotes from Darwinian fundamentalists that, applied consistently, prove this.

Abject nonsense.

ID is nothing short of religious doctrine masquerading as science. There is absolutely no science behind it and there is nothing "intelligent" about it.

Someday some rogue scientist is going to engineer a pathogen and release it. And the NAS and other evolutionary fundamentalist organizations are going to quickly declare that it is illegitimate to believe the organism was modified by an UNKNOWN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, because that would be "religion." At least, that would be the case if they are consistent.

Nope. If someone did do that it would be recognized as such fairly quickly.

That's the joy of the consistency of science. It would recognize the scenario above while it rejects the stupidity of ID.