There is no “scientific theory of intelligent design”. ID is no more scientific than astrology, numerology, or phrenology, and like those, does not belong in a science curriculum. Go ahead and tech it as a example in a comparative religion or sociology class, but it ain’t science. Do the folks at the Discovery Institute also claim that holocaust deniers or people that say the moon landings were faked are the victims of censorship as well?
GIVEN: The article linked at this FR article http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3117912/posts?page=1
REQUIRED: Propose an alternate to Werner Gitt’s theory of information, or write a publishable critique thereof.
SOLUTION: (your input here.)
As for science or research - from the new intelligent design research lab, there was discussion of two technical articles published in the Journal of Molecular Biology by protein scientist Doug Axe (for abstracts, see here and here). As the New Scientist acknowledged, funding for the research underlying these peer-reviewed articles was provided by Discovery Institute's research fellowship program--thus disproving the twin canards that Discovery Institute does not support scientific research, and that pro-ID scientists do not publish peer-reviewed research.
For more ID papers see HERE or HERE
Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
There is no “scientific theory of evolution” either. Evolutionists are clueless about how any profoundly complex “simple” cell could form from lifeless chemicals, and they have zero evidence for macroevolution from fish to reptiles to birds, etc. None.
Both ID and evolution are faith-based. Evolutionists are just too dishonest to admit that simple fact. That’s why they react so angrily to blaspheming their dual pagan gods of time and chance.