[Quote - William Dembski]
Is Intelligent Design Testable?
William A. Dembski 01.24.01
" But isn't intelligent design just a stone's throw from fundamentalist Christianity and rabid creationism? Even if a theory of intelligent design should ultimately prove successful and supersede Darwinism, it would not follow that the designer posited by this theory would have to be the Christian God or for that matter be real in some ontological sense. One can be an anti-realist about science and simply regard the designer as a regulative principle -- a conceptually useful device for making sense out of certain facts of biology -- without assigning the designer any weight in reality. Wittgenstein, for instance, regarded the theories of Copernicus and Darwin not as true but as "fertile new points of view
[/quote]
Your answer coupled with Dembski's just equated ID with naturalism. How is that different from Evolution?
God, in fact any religion, is inconsequential to evolution; evolution cares nothing about the origin question nor whether some long forgotten designer initiated the process. The question of whether ID should be taught in schools hinges not on it's religiosity but on it's validity as science.
"The question of whether ID should be taught in schools hinges not on it's religiosity but on it's validity as science."
But it will win, or be defeated, because of its "religiosity". Winning or losing in this area is political, and by definition, idiotic.
In my opinion, Intelligent Design is a speculative science just like evolution is. Both can point to the same fossil evidence and biological facts and offer speculative theories that match the known facts. Both theories will depend on a black box: evolution would have to explain how can irreducible complexities of life be formed wholly at random, and the ID will have to explain who the Designer is.
The fact that a designer is something religion also postulates is a corollary that is uncomfortable to the atheist; it should not be an impediment to teaching ID in schools, even if religious curriculum is excluded by law.
Back to the male nipple question, the best explanation is religious fundamentalist, and not naturalist. God created man first, then He made woman from the man. Male nipples, -- a minor sensory organ,-- were the original design. Female nipples are adaptation of an existing feature to the additional tasks the female body has.