There's a (large) number of atheist scientists that support the concept of ID, and what is most striking in the past few years is the disgusting climate in which ID, of which I myself am not even a proponent, has been demonized in the US by the scientific establishment, and are forced out of their job under the most suspicious circumstances that in all honesty can't bear the light of day.

You really wouldn't want me to support my "case" with dozens of examples that make your hair stand up on your arm, or would you?

Ok - those are rhetorical questions, but still I ask them.

Dare to peel back the onion and prepare to be astounded by what you find.

I do not question your courage, to be honest. VERY simple research is the minimum requirement. Uncover that what is covered.

In the name of Science I should break this open and expose the entire junkhole.

Why should I do that here?

First- please try to calm down. No need to get angry about this.

By all means post a list of non-Christian ID proponents, and let's have a look at their Wiki entries.

You understand that "proponent" means the person has to believe that ID <is the case>, <is actually a fact> to qualify as a proponent of ID.

I'm not referring to people who allow that ID, or some form of it, <may> be true.

I'll stand by my statement until disproven- and if disproven I'll admit, perforce, that I'm wrong about this point.

I'm certain I'm not wrong that ID, in its current form, is "junk science."

I invite you to examine some basic definitions of what "science" is in the first place.

Start with the scientific method.

Some scientists might well assume this, however.

"Science" as a general idea and practice would proceed in the following manner, or at least one hopes it would:

1. Affirm that life exists in the first place (So "life" has to be defined, and carefully, as YouRang pointed out above)

2. Define life (is a bacterium alive? is a virus alive? is a rock alive?)

3. Examine what material evidence there might be that might plausibly account for the origin of life.

"Science" is meant to be solely materialistic, in both conception and method. This is one of its limitations, but also what makes it such a powerful tool of inquiry.

I don't think theists need fear any of the findings of science, past present or future.

Keep in mind that "science" itself regards the discoveries of "science" to be provisional, never the "final answer": particularly on questions that are not easily tackled from a strictly materialistic method.

It's rather easy to prove that salamanders are born from sexual reproduction, and not from fire.

I just have one question for OCF, who posted this:

<OhioChessFan: <YouRang: What predictions does the creation model make by which scientists could test and affirm that model? If there are none, how can scientists claim that it works as well as evolution?>

Let's start then with the assumption of a worldwide flood. If there was a worldwide deluge, what would you expect to find in the first layer of the fossil record after such an event?>

I've read Genesis. The creation story is distinct from the flood, which occurred many years after the first week, when God made everything.

I'm not sure why anyone would be uncomfortable with the Bible or any other Holy Book.

I love it myself- exploring it has been, and remains, one of the richest pleasures of my life.

That said, I don't believe Jesus was actually resurrected- nor do I believe that Genesis is an accurate account of the origin of anything, at least not in a materialist sense.

But so what? Who cares what I believe about the Bible. I don't think it's important to the history of civilization what I think about the Bible.

I do love it, however, and I'm certainly not uncomfortable with it.

It seems to me that many contemporary theists, however, are, and have been, uncomfortable with many of the findings of bona fide science- particularly with the solar-centric universe and evolution by means of natural selection.

I'm not sure this is necessary. Why couldn't scientific findings just be the way God made the world, for the sake of argument?

That was certainly the opinion of Newton, Kepler, and Faraday, all three of whom were staunch, and true, Christians= and all three of them knew the Bible inside out as well.

Start with the scientific method.>

As if I haven't, yet?

I think that's just plain offensive, and yes, for very good reason I DO think this is worth getting angry over and with.

Or didn't you read my post; and simply think you can tell me over what I may get angry with?

Things that MATTER TO ME in the most profound way.

I explained that IN my previous post, and until you have had the opportunity to take notice of the specifics I imply are in there, you'd do well to cut down on you patronizing tone in your post addressed at me, severely.

Stop assuming, and start verifying, especially if you address me personally and in a correcting manner.

The Tlingit Peoples believe that in the beginning, only Mother Raven existed. She flew endlessly through the sky. Then she became very lonely, and began to weep.

Of course they do, my quote was a joke.

<I do think if you teach children there are no consequences beyond this lifetime for bad behavior, it has a terrible impact on their human development.>

See this post here you made?

<That's a complete and utter junk assertion>

That's an emotionally charged insult, and out of the blue, especially since none of my posts were even addressed to you specifically.

I never post like that with regard to what you say at this website.

I'd appreciate it if you extend the same courtesy to me.

That said, I still don't see any list of non-Christian ID proponents.

The emphasis is there however. Query: Who or what is the designer meant if not God?

Personally, I don't have such in principle opposition to the ID concept, merely the way <all> its proponents argue it.

I wonder if the cultures generated in a Petrie dish might validly argue about ID? If they had the means. How do we know we're not an analog of those mighty beings in the Petrie Dish? Answer: we don't of course, as we don't have the means of testing this beyond speculation any more than the Petriedishians do. In fact, we can't even prove that what we see exists the way we think it does or is a Matrix-style illusion, including what we see as light from the rest of the universe (if anyone's interested I'll point to an article that discusses the engineering issues involved in this possibility).

However, I'm afraid (though not really) that I come firmly down on the side of mainstream science on most of this debate, having started off with and been introduced to creationism as a child. That's not to say I accept mainstream science uncritically - I don't, as whatthefat knows from some of our earlier discussions - but anyone who's scientifically inclined/steeped <must> be a sceptic as that is how science advances, questioning the theories and assumptions of the day. That this process is far more fraught in some fields than others (one of which is not biology) is not especially apposite.

I also know people who are religious/spiritual who see no conflict between their faith and science.

My tuppence.

Dare to peel back the onion and prepare to be astounded by what you find.>

"The Seven Trumpets blowing,
Sweet rock n' roll,
Gonna blow right down
Inside your soul"

That's from the song I just posted here which is called "As sure as Eggs is Eggs"- the final section of "Supper's Ready," Peter Gabriel's interpretation of <Revelations>

Not to mention, "believing Christian" is a redundant phrase- non-believing Christians aren't Christians.

Heh. An atheist IT person, a friend, was in Malaysia a few years ago and was talking to a person from a non-Christian religion (no point in naming it, it's a red herring).

It transpired during the course of the conversation that the non-Christian expressed the opinion that my friend Bill was a Christian.

Bill denied this, although he had been raised in a Christian family and society, and asked this guy why he thought this was the case.

The person apparently responded that:
"You sound like a Christian, you look like a Christian. You even SMELL like a Christian."

The rather rude chappie was of course correct, as Bill was in fact of Christian heritage. Does Bill's disavowal of Christianity in favour of secularism and atheism make a difference. Well obviously not to this particular chappie but it does underscore the fact that we are products, more or less, of our upbringing, and that most if not all of our early values are <given>.

It's not till much later that people have the ability to reformulate their values and tailor them to their own experiences, interpretations of life etc etc

But Christianity, like any other dogmatic religion or society, <conditions> us, and like it or not, the huge majority of us, once we've been raised as Christian, Muslims, Jews or whatever, <remain> that way for all practical purposes regardless of what else we think we're doing. Many of course don't and embrace these faiths wholeheartedly.

It reminds me of Frank Zappa advising some noisy hippy or "counter cultural" type to stop abusing a uniformed usher at one of his concerts. When the guy wouldn't shut up, Frank made the comment to the audience at large, many of whom were witless enough to cheer the abuse, that <Don't kid yourselves: everyone in this room is wearing a uniform.>