Talk:Intelligent design theory is scientific (Talk.Origins)

I have to disagree with the statement about the 100 coins. Each of the scenarios is just as likely as the other. --VoiceOfReason
 * Hold up. No, my argument would apply if the coins were sequenced (i.e. in a line). I forgot that there are multiple possible routes to get to half-and-half.

Intelligent Design Scientific?
Im not trying to attack anyone here but, why is intelligent design scientific? why only some things can be better explained by ID? and what about the bad design that perfectly fits with the prediction from evolution, but in the theory of ID, it has no clear answer on that one?

Also why no research have been done? ID movement lost so much money in their political campaign to promote teaching ID on schools, wouldnt it be more useful if they invested in research instead? and then try it to publish their research on scientific peer reviewed journals to get more aproval so it would have more support?

And another one, isnt the basis for intelligent design religious?

In the leaked Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, however, the supporters of the movement were told:

"We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

If its not science then it has no place on education, and im not biased in anyway, in fact if there really is intelligent design in nature i would be thrilled to know, and i think many scientists would too if it were really scientific, because the truth is that the overwhelming scientific consensus reject intelligent design as science, and many of them have even called it junk science or pseudo-science. Peace and knowledge Ryosuke1208 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)