sorry for arriving a little late into this discussion. You say in your piece above:

Whoa! Read those words again. The presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. It is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. And all this time we have been told that ID is not science because it permits a divine cause.

On the subject of causes, if we assume for a second that a 'creative deity' uses a 'divine cause' to create a natural creature that is itself capable of causation (such as a human being), would anything caused by the creature be a natural cause or a divine cause? If the creative deity used a natural mechanism (started by a divine cause) to achieve it's ends, would that natural mechanism be testable by science?

I guess the main question is - would a 'creative deity' be confined solely to 'divine causes'? If so, why?

I was advised a few minutes ago by sources at the Discovery Institute that while Susan Hutchinson is part of the DI's board, the DI does not receive money from the Charles Simonyi fund.

Again, I thank you for providing Dawkins essay. With the dawn of a new day, I read it from start to finish and immediately started re-reviewing it. Then I reread our threads.

If it wasn't obvious from yesterday's comments, I will state it clearly this morning. I agree almost entirely with what Dawkin's wrote in his essay. I am not sure I agree it was a wise idea that he wrote it, but I can't find much to fault in his logic or evidence.

Mike, you implied a need of having trustworthy people around when you are doing critical analysis.

I offer that people who honestly agree with you are the last people you should trust. Science isn't a popularity contest. Neither is critical thinking. It is way too easy to fall in the trap of believing things you want to believe.

You have pointed out that Dawkins is helping the ID movement politically. I will point out that Dawkins is helping out the ID movement scientifically.

I will agree that the cure may be worse than the disease if "Wedge II" causes everyone to get distracted. That is why I am interested in turning this into a positive where we all don't feel the need to hide inner thoughts.

ID critic - "ID is God"

ID proponent - "Yea, so what… here is my hypothesis…"

"WWF "“ World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly the "World Wildlife Fund", which is still used by WWF-US and WWF-Canada) is a global environment conservation, research, environmental advocacy and restoration organization."

"World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) is a publicly traded, privately controlled integrated media (focusing in television, internet, and live events), sports, and entertainment company…"

They both used to be known as 'WWF', until the wrestling-based one was forced by the animal-based one to change.

Crazy bastards.

Of course we are crazy. You have to be crazy and irrational to think you truly can know anything using only "Naturalism". Just ask DonaldM and Plantinga.

I am glad you and Mike Gene liked my observation (got a LOL out of Mike).

I don't know what Dawkin's motives are, but I honestly think it would make for cleaner, clearer scientific discussions with barriers removed.

Unfortunately, I also think MikeGene may be being insightful when he (or she?) says…

Mind you, this is not something that pleases me. Not at all.

This could be political dynamite. Think about it. Voodoo, Wicca, astrology, creationism and ID are all now science. Are we going to teach this in the public school? Everyone gets equal access to public funding? (can't discriminate based on religion)

While scientists may be able to handle far-out hypotheses, the general public will be confused. This includes those in power.

ID proponents at Dover formally asked the courts to open up the definition of science. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

"Again, Jones had enough before him to rule without advancing into the area of the scope of science. Jones also strayed unnecessarily beyond the scope of his own expertise. His legal expertise on the Lemon test is not disputed. His qualifications on science and its philosophical scope are problematic."

I've made this point elsewhere, too. Jones stated a few times that whether ID is science or not is "essential" whether there was an Establishment Clause violation or not. Unfortunately, he never goes on to explain why it is essential.

In any case, Mike Gene is exactly right in this post. Dawkins clearly said that he thinks the "God Hypothesis" is a scientific one. He didn't just say that its a really weak explanation that we can put forth and show to be wrong (as ed darrel is suggesting).

I should also point out that Jones all but ridiculed (others did ridicule) people like Behe and Fuller for suggesting that ID wants to change the "ground rules" of science. In the comments above, from Thought Provoker, we learn that this is Dawkins goal too:

"Dawkins implies a proposal on how Science should work and, if accepted, is how science will work from now on."

Crazy bastards.

We are getting way off topic and arguing in circles. I will close with a simple suggestion that you look at that link you asked for and see what the Defendents were and were not asking the judge to rule on.

One more point. The issue of the religious motives of board members involved the Lemon test, specifically the primary motives of the defendents as they related to a secular purpose and defendent motives concerning advancing religion. Again, Jones had enough before him to rule without advancing into the area of the scope of science. Jones also strayed unnecessarily beyond the scope of his own expertise. His legal expertise on the Lemon test is not disputed. His qualifications on science and its philosophical scope are problematic.

We are getting way off topic and arguing in circles. I will close with a simple suggestion that you look at that link you asked for and see what the Defendents were and were not asking the judge to rule on.

I don't think Dawkins made any pre-meditated decision to help keep the Wedge alive. He is a True Believer who wants very badly for everyone to convert to Atheism and sees Science as the salvation road to this Utopia. It's his flailing zealotry that helps the Wedge.

Dawkin's has his own extra-scientific agenda and uses selective data as his wedge.