"This isn't "proof texting", it's bringing together many IN CONTEXT quotes from many ID leaders showing that they DO believe that ID is religious in nature, even if they intend to lie about it."

You still don't get it. The issue isn't whether Matzke's Trusted Sources mean what he says they mean. The question is whether I should adopt them as my Trusted Sources too. Consider these questions, which you didn't answer:

"Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bacterial flagellum is designed. How would this conclusion entail the reality of God? What arguments would Philip Johnson use to take me from a belief in the design of the flagellum to the existence of God?"

"Then you cap off your posting with a weird, totally non sequitur, quote from Shanks to the effect that ID doesn't necessarily guarantee that God exists."

This is a slight misrepresentation of Shanks' point, which is that an inference of design doesn't entail that a god of any particular religion exists. Which, if correct, is pretty hard to reconcile with the claim that ID is religion in disguise.

"You actually seem to think that this proves something. Earth to ID: the fact that a religious doctrine is false doesn't make it non-religious! If that were true, there would be no religion!"

Earth to TTam: I'm not claiming that a religious doctrine being false makes it non-religious.

"When you have to go to this kind of length to defend ID, it's time to stand back and do a complete re-think of your position."

Has it occured to you that I've already considered the view you're advocating and found it wanting? It would be interesting to see if you can re-think your position, starting with the questions I asked you.

"Untill then, unsubscribe me, I don't have the time to waste."

Sorry, but the software doesn't allow me to unsubscribe members without deleting all of their posts.

Then you cap off your posting with a weird, totally non sequitur, quote from Shanks to the effect that ID doesn't necessarily guarantee that God exists. You actually seem to think that this proves something. Earth to ID: the fact that a religious doctrine is false doesn't make it non-religious! If that were true, there would be no religion!

I've had a chance to read more of this blog since my original posting and, unfortunately, you're not that far out of line with your blogmates or the rest of the ID world. Sad to say, you appear to be one of the more knowledgeable people on this blog. Talk about the blind leading those who refuse to see!

When you have to go to this kind of length to defend ID, it's time to stand back and do a complete re-think of your position. Untill then, unsubscribe me, I don't have the time to waste.

"I don't understand your point."

Weird, as I think it was pretty obvious in what I wrote. As the title, "ID critics and proof texting" might lead one to suspect, my post is about the practice of supporting one's beliefs on short quotes from "trusted sources", rather than engaging with the arguments pro and con. I then give an example of ID critic Nick Matzke engaging in this practice by quoting Philip Johnson, and then I show the futility of this approach by quoting another ID critic, Niall Shanks, back at him. The point being that Philip Johnson's opinions don't count for anything if the reasoning behind them isn't sound.

Now, it's obvious that to you, Philip Johnson is a "trusted source", as he's "a very important and powerful ID leader." Therefore, you feel justified in proof texting Johnson's words to support what you already believe, namely that ID=creationism.

Well, let's drop the mental crutches and examine the reasoning behind the claim that intelligent design "really means the reality of God", shall we? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bacterial flagellum is designed. How would this conclusion entail the reality of God? What arguments would Philip Johnson use to take me from a belief in the design of the flagellum to the existence of God?

Or do you mean that the belief which this strategy aims to further is wrong, that intelligent design does not really mean the reality of God and nobody should try to sneak ID into schools?

If so, does the fact that the foundational belief of the ID movement is false change the movement's strategy? According to your own quote, the universally acknowledged father of the modern ID movement, the man who who designed ID's strategy and who remains a very highly influential leader of the movement today, freely acknowledges that ID really means the reality of God and the ID movement's strategy really is to get it into the schools through subterfuge. This is essentially what ID critics have been saying all along.

If all you mean by this entry is that you don't share Professor Johnson's goals, then good for you, but this blog is a very minor and non-typical part of the ID movement. Johnson is the originator of that movement and it's strategy and he is a very important and powerful ID leader. He says ID means God did it and ID's strategy is to use subterfuge to get this belief into the schools. His word is good enough for me.

In fact, there is textual evidence that in his less skeptical hours (in his writings he would occassionally comment on his more common sense views, outside of the impracticality of skepticism about things like causation, etc.) Hume recognized the force of design argument. Hume thought the design inference was somewhat compelling outside of a radical skepticism, but not compelling towards anything but a vague source of power.