That's especially odd because there is no difference between a "God" who "creates" via blindwatchmaker processes and no "God" at all.

Does ID say ANYTHING about worship? No. Who, what, how, where, when or why to worship? No. Does ID say anything about giving service to? No. Is ID based on any religious texts? No.

People need to be aware of this:

As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, "(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught "˜happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions'."

Yes I do.

edarrell:
You're not talking atomic decay rates, are you?

Yes I am.

edarrell:
Another appeal to magic?

Another appeal to reality. Decay rates have been increased in the lab as well as in nuclear reactors.

edarrell:
I think DI avoids Catholics.

DR. Behe is a Catholic.

edarrell:
Knowledge is the enemy of intelligent design dog and eohippus shows.

That is funny because the more we know the more ID appears to be reality.

edarrell:
If ID is thought to be nothing more than repackaged creationism, perhaps the thinker has had the wool ripped from her eyes.

Perhaps the thinker really isn't (thinking).

Why not a Catholic church? First, because Catholic churches tend not to do that kind of political organizing, and second because I am unaware that any DI fete has ever been held in a Catholic church. I think DI avoids Catholics. And third, because most Catholic congregations have enough Catholic school-educated people in their midst to heckle the DI presentations. Catholic schools teach hard science, and they tend to teach it well. Knowledge is the enemy of intelligent design dog and eohippus shows. Perhaps DI knows what its doing when it avoids Catholic audiences.

If ID is thought to be nothing more than repackaged creationism, perhaps the thinker has had the wool ripped from her eyes.

Another appeal to magic?

"Steve Reuland is a biochemist. It seems rather ironic for a member of a group that exists to politicize biology to describe a man who defends his scientific specialty against anti-scientific attack as "politically invested"."

I'm not a member of the ID movement, and I don't write to "politicize biology". As for Panda's Thumb, it's a political reaction to the ID movement. As such, it's hardly surprising to find its writers clinging to politically expedient ways of framing the debate.

"Since Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, refers to ID as creationism and since a majority of those pushing ID are, in fact, creationists, you're just saying that Reuland has an accurate knowledge of ID."

Whether ID is creationism isn't something that can be determined through proof texting or demographics. What you need to do is follow the logic of a design inference: How would we get from the design of, say, the bacterial flagellum to the truth of creationism?

"Face it, to a first approximation, ID is creationism."

That's your subjective opinion. To others in the streets, to a first approximation, evolution is atheism.

"As far as the personal positions of yourself and Mike Gene are concerned, it's not surprising that people think you hold the same views as the vast majority of all IDists. I can see how it's annoying, but unless you both do a lot of advertising, it's entirely natural for people to think that people who identify themselves as IDists are in fact creationists, like the vast majority of all IDists are."

The point isn't whether critics are justified in adopting the ID=creationism meme, but in the implications of this belief. If ID is thought to be nothing but repackaged creationism, what consequences will this have in the evaluation of ID by the "objective and well-informed" scientific community?

However, your comment does raise one interesting thesis: That if only ID evolutionists like Mike and myself were more vocal about our views, critics wouldn't confuse it with creationism. To test it, let's look at a recent event, namely my submission to Circus of the Spineless. My post contained everything Dr. Örstan needed to know that I wasn't a creationist, had he taken the time to read it. But instead, he labelled it as "creationist" and likened it to someone painting grafitti on his house.

Accept it for the sham it is.

As for "vincible ignorance" that is how we describe you and your ilk. Except we call it "willful ignorance".

Ya see DD we know that decay rates can be increased. That is a fact of life. Therefore we can only guess the age of the Earth based on unverifiable assumptions.

DataDoc: ID(trotIDw) is pretty much as Reuland describes it.

Joe G: No it isn't. However it would appear to be so to those who don't know any better.
As for the age of the Earth- until we know how it formed there is no way to know how old it is.

DataDoc: "Vincible ignorance".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

DataDoc: "ID(trotIDw) is pretty much as Reuland describes it."
Krauze: It should be remembered that Reuland writes from the perspective of a politically invested person, subscribing to the ID=creationism meme. It's sobering to remember the many ID critics who have attempted to portray Mike's or my own position as "ID(trotIDw)".

Steve Reuland is a biochemist. It seems rather ironic for a member of a group that exists to politicize biology to describe a man who defends his scientific specialty against anti-scientific attack as "politically invested".

I would hardly criticize him for subscribing to the "ID=creationism meme". Since Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, refers to ID as creationism and since a majority of those pushing ID are, in fact, creationists, you're just saying that Reuland has an accurate knowledge of ID. Face it, to a first approximation, ID is creationism. If this disturbs you or Mike, don't hassle Steve Reuland about it, talk to the ID folks. They're the only ones who can do anything about it.

As far as the personal positions of yourself and Mike Gene are concerned, it's not surprising that people think you hold the same views as the vast majority of all IDists. I can see how it's annoying, but unless you both do a lot of advertising, it's entirely natural for people to think that people who identify themselves as IDists are in fact creationists, like the vast majority of all IDists are.

Thats odd, because on this very website I quite recently vociferously argued that evolution and belief in God are compatible. Shame you can't recall it, Mike!