You seem to think,
@gradyll , that ID has changed a lot, since the Dover Trial, "a long time ago". There are three reasons why this is not believable:
First, fifteen years is not a long time at all in the history of the creationist movement.
Second, I certainly haven't heard about any new changes to ID (and I would have, as ID always got plenty of press, before the trial pricked its bubble. Any news about ID would have got plenty of coverage).
And third, in reading this thread we can see you using the same old warmed-over creationist arguments that Creationists and IDers have been using all along. "The eye can't have evolved" indeed! Very funny.
So take a look at these things that Judge Jones wrote and try to understand: this was ID on trial, and it was found to be completely in the wrong.
"Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (
9:7-8 (Haught);
Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005;
Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (
21:90 (Behe);
38:36-38 (Minnich))."
"Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "
Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (
11:26-28 (Forrest));
McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (
11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."
"Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2;
10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24)."
The big difference is this: in a forum thread like this people can be evasive and get away with it; but in court you get cross-examined in front of an independent judge, and when that happened ID got pinned down and exposed for the con it is.