Intelligent Design Creationism In Supporter's Own Words
Watching the IDCreos' reactions to Dembski's interview in the Focus on the Family rag is fun, I must admit.
From another comment posted on the ID Blog:
ID can certainly mean different things to different people. This is what it means to him...I won't dispute that any of this is true in the least. However, this is exactly what makes Intelligent Design something other than science. Scientific theories, even hypotheses, don't "mean different things to different people." Such a condition would preclude falsifiability. The whole point of science is to discover objective reality, not debating personal belief. Sovereignty and purpose in the sense that it's used here have nothing to do with scientific inquiry whatsoever. These are the domain, as the commenter points out, of philosophy.
ID is significant to those who believe that the heavens declare the glory of God, and that God’s invisible qualities can be seen in everything that has been made. It is of vital importance philosophically because of the issues of sovereignty and purpose...
One of the major objections screeched about after the Dover decision was that Judge Jones had no business saying that Intelligent Design was a religious construct. From everything that's coming out now that Dembski has stated that "the designer... is the Christian God," I can't see any reason why there was an objection in the first place. As far as I can tell, the IDCreos are in perfect agreement with that part of the decision.
