What is intelligent design and how should we defend it?

[RonO]

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/

Luskin wrote this over a year ago, and it has been on their
"Recommended" list on the Discovery Institute's news site since, but
there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the ID perps take it
seriously, and definitely no IDiots discussing the topic seem to want to
deal with what IDiocy is supposed to be. When it first came out the
IDiots at uncommon descent put it up, but only to change the topic to
what Luskin had written in some religious discussion. IDiocy isn't
dealt with the way Luskiin claims that it should be.

It looks like the ID perps should start trying to figure out what things
would be like if they ever had been interested in accomplishing any
IDiotic science. They have always claimed to have already accomplished
some, so what is the ID science supposed to be, and what has it added to
our understanding of nature?

The ID creationist scam is pretty much dead on TO at the moment, and
pretty much everywhere else including the Discovery Institute. No
creationist seem to want to deal with what ID is supposed to have been.
The Gap denial of the Top Six isn't supposed to be what the ID perps
wanted to produce, and the Top Six pretty much killed IDiocy on TO. The
ID perps supposedly wanted to use the scientific method to develop some
type of functional god hypothesis in the form of some type of
intelligent designer existing in nature responsible for what we can
observe in nature. That never happened. The main reason that it never
happened seems to be that the ID perps never really wanted to understand
what that designer was supposed to have done. The designer that filled
the Top Six gaps was never going to be biblical enough for most of them,
so there was never much effort to try to determine if some designer
could have filled those gaps.

You can go to the creationist news site and see what intelligent design
seems to be at this time, and it isn't much like what Luskin claimed.

https://evolutionnews.org/

The Top Six:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/a2K79skPGXI/m/uDwx0i-_BAAJ

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

This is what is up at the ID perp's web site:

Gap denial:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/fossil-friday-the-abrupt-origins-of-lagomorphs-and-rodents/

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/geneticists-puzzled-by-octopuss-unique-genes-seem-to-have-appeared-out-of-nowhere/

Faith and Science:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/tom-holland-stephen-meyer-douglas-murray-god-and-the-west/

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/johannes-kepler-on-the-holy-work-of-astronomy/

This is supposed to be Medicine, but is some weird moral value claim
that seems to have nothing to do with ID science:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/harvesting-clones-to-live-forever-would-be-monstrous/

More science denial:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/meyer-craig-turek-examining-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

Tour is on record as claiming to understand that the ID science never
existed, and he is just into gap denial.
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/james-tour-dismantles-dave-farinas-expert-witnesses-on-the-state-of-origin-of-life-research/

Some nonsense argument that is supposed to reflect on biological evolution:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/02/beyond-evolutionary-fitness-mammals-are-ecosystem-engineers/

What is intelligent design supposed to be, and why is it being defended
in this way instead of how Luskin claims that it should be defended?

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/what-is-intelligent-design-and-how-should-we-defend-it/

It looks like even the ID perps have given up on the ID creationist scam.

Ron Okimoto