The whackos are out in force.
Fraz - ID isn't science and that's a fact. Dance around and wave your Magic Maracas all you like, ID is theology, not science. And that is a fact.
ID as a refutation of the entire theory of evolution -which is EXACTLY the position creationists have taken -is not a science. When someone argues that ID should be taught as an opposing theory to evolution -that isn't science. It is simply renaming creationism "intelligent design" and was specifically done by creationists in the hope it would slide by unnoticed. I totally agree, in that situation, it is not science.
However, that isn't true when discussing the SPECIFIC work of a specific scientist who reached that conclusion based on their scientific work and has the work product to support that conclusion.
Don't confuse my insistence that the work of a scientist cannot be judged to be "real" science by anyone other than fellow scientists, that means I accept their conclusions as "truth". I am talking about who is qualified to determine the scientific validity of another scientist's work. That isn't determined by popular opinion -we've been there, done that and nothing good comes of it.
Some people intentionally or not, mix the actions of creationists who re-named their own creationist beliefs in order to take the NAME of the theory for themselves -with the very specific work of a specific scientist and pretend they are one and the same. But the SPECIFIC work done by scientists where that theory was offered, applies ONLY to a highly specific question and was never intended or offered as a refutation of evolution -by ANY scientist. Most scientists who have offered that theory for a specific question AGREE with at least part of the theory of evolution -and for some, a lot of that theory.
So you can't argue that scientists who offered that theory don't believe in evolution. Most of them believe at least some of that theory is correct, and some believe much of it to be correct. Creationists who believe NO part of evolution is correct and glommed onto the NAME of this theory and re-named their creationist beliefs with it -have nothing to do with any specific scientific work.
If, internationally known astrophysicist and cosmologist, Michal Heller produces reams of nothing BUT scientific work involving extensive physics, math, cosmology etc. and says based on that work alone, he concluded "X,Y and Z" -then that is a conclusion that came from the SCIENCE of his work, that he claims the SCIENCE supports. Another scientist in the same field is qualified to try and reproduce his work and qualified to determine whether those conclusions are supported by that work. His scientific work either has validity to it or not -but that cannot be determined by merely claiming you don't like his conclusions that came from that science.
The notion that because some creationist personally liked those conclusions for that one specific question and pretends it was intended to applied for ANY other area but that specific one -in no way discredits the work of a specific scientist. Religious people didn't like the IMPLICATIONS of Darwin's work when it was presented -and on that basis alone declared it be not "real" science too.
But opinion, based on nothing but the fact you just don't like the IMPLICATIONS that come from a scientist's work, cannot in any way determine the validity of the work. It couldn't when it was Darwin's ox getting gored, and it still can't just because secularists believe it is their ox getting gored by some scientist's work. They just don't like the IMPLICATIONS of it. Tough -that isn't how the validity of a scientist's work is determined.
