[Tenspace]

Lurker wrote

Use this one ---> :wall:

Except that some (many?) biblically-based religious groups oppose teaching ID in science class.

That's a good thing which just reinforces my statement.

I've heard it many places. Don't know if it's "official" but then again who/what is the official ID spokesperson? Here's a link for ya.

Lurker, here is the "official" statement from the originators of Intelligent Design:

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas. - discovery.org

Note that they are placing the blame not on "change over time" (which is an intellectually poor definition of evolution), but on "neo-Darwinism". They then go on to misrepresent the core fundamentals of evolutionary theory by stating:

evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that .... stop .... they are quote mining here. They cite the National Association of Biology Teachers as saying, "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." by tacking it on the end of a very misleading statement.

Let's talk about the first half: Evolution is driven by multiple selection methods; one is natural selection. Sexual selection plays a part just as important. Note they narrowness of their definition; otherwise they couldn't make the next claim, that natural selection is "unpredictable and purposeless". Tell me, what purpose does an atom have? Why does no one complain that gravity is purposeless? Unpredictablility, in their sense is irrelevant. They are not, as you can see by the way they couch their words, referring to prediction in a scientific sense. Lurker, I'm sure you can see my point - purpose isn't a part of science, except at the application level, when things fall to the engineers, and even then we're talking material purpose, not some overarching need to infuse purpose in everything we do.

Regarding the quote from NABT, it is 100% accurate. There is no direction or goal to evolution. it is nonteleogical; no ladder to climb, no hierarchy of creatures evolving toward perfection. That's adaptation for ya. Whatever the geographical and environmental conditions, life will adapt. And that adaptation is explained using evolutionary theory.

Here you'll find a thorough refutation of Intelligent Design that covers the underlying motives for the invention of this pseudo-science.

Enjoy. :)