Nahh, don't have to "defend" it... the truth never needs defending.
I do like pointing out how Einstein believed in the possibility, and if it was good enough for him to consider, it's good enough for my consideration as well.
But you see, the thing is, ID doesn't necessarily mean God or Religion. It only means Intelligent. You jump to the conclusion Intelligence must come from a God or is somehow rooted to Religion and religious belief. This is an assumption I never attempt to make, only the possibility of Intelligence.
Your hatred for God and Religion keeps you from being an objective scientist. You refuse to accept anything you can relate to a "religious" perception, and immediately dismiss it as "foolish" or "moronic" and you continue to close your mind to the possibilities. I merely try to shed some light into your closed mind.
Uh Dixie, not to kidnap this forum into an ID discussion but it's your lack of understanding of what science is and the scientific method that prevents you from being an objective scientist.
The problem with ID, from a scientific stand point, has nothing to do with religion or politics. That's a discussion for when ID advocates attempt to by pass science and advocate ID's being taught as science.
The real problem of ID that I see, as an objective biologist, is that it provides me with absolutely no practical tools for advancing the knowledge of how living systems function. In fact it doesn't even stand up to the most basic tenets of the scientific method.
Does ID model natural behavior? No it models the supernatural.
Does it make any useful or practical predictions about living systems that can be tested? No it doesn't.
Since it doesn't make any useful or practical predictions that can be tested, then it goes with out saying that ID cannot be independently verified by others.
Is ID tentative? Can it be falsified? Not really, if you can't demonstrate that this intelligence actually exist, then you cannot, in principle, demonstrate that it actually doesn't exist either.
Do ID supporters publish peer reviewed scholarly articles presenting research that presents evidence for ID? There's none that I'm aware of.
The real problem with ID is that it is a science stopper. When, as a biologist, I ask. "Why does a living system behave in a certain manner?" to say "because it was intelligently designed that way" stops furthering knowledge in it's tracks. There's no need at that point to understand structure, function and the dynamics of that living system any further as ID tells us the answer is, "It was designed that way.".
I oppose intelligent design, as an objective scientist, because it provides so little, if anything, of value to science. It has no practical use.
I'm hostile towards ID because it's supporters essentially are anti-intellectuals who reject the enlightenment values of naturalism, materialism and reason.
and none of that has anything to do with my religious views.
