The most eloquent documentation of ID’s religious inspiration comes in the form of a Discovery Institute strategic memo that made its way onto the Web in 1999: the “Wedge Document.” A broad attack on “scientific materialism,” the paper asserts that modern science has had “devastating” cultural consequences, such as the denial of objective moral standards and the undermining of religious belief. In contrast, the document states that ID “promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” In order to achieve this objective, the ID movement will “function as a ‘wedge’” that will “split the trunk [of scientific materialism] … at its weakest points.”

Scientists have been studying the origin and nature of life on earth for at least 4,000 years. In that time, they have come up with a number of hypotheses. Then new evidence has been turned up, and the old hypotheses have been discarded, often reluctantly. Scientists, like all humans, really hate to discard ideas that they have defended for years. The history of science is a history of unhappy people reluctantly changing their minds... The intelligent design people have never suffered such a crisis. They have never changed their minds based on new evidence. That's because they started with the desired results and worked backward... Science has been wrong before -- the intelligent design people will stress that. Science cannot explain this bit or that bit. And it is true, science has been wrong, and science does not have all the answers. But here's the thing: In all the instances when science has been wrong and has had to change its mind to accommodate new data, never once has it done so because it failed to account for the intervention of a supernatural entity. Not once.

Extort hard earned money from hard working folks to pay for schools where only your narrow ‘truth’ can be taught; it’s hardly just.

...ordinary people's children are dumbed down...

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."-Seneca

For example a simple calculation of the odds of a bacterial strand of RNA forming by random chance in an organic soup yields a time estimate longer than our guess at the age of the universe...

Science requires no less faith in the scientific method than religion requires faith in some form of deity

This is exactly why the scientific method requires faith. It assumes that given reproducible conditions the outcome (event) is also reproducible. The only way you can know this for certain is if you can witness every event, past and future;

How can you make an honest argument against evolution while at the same time proselytize the christian view over all the other equally valid myths?

This is complete nonsense and is the argument used by many to promote the idea that all are equal, i.e. ID. evolution etc.

Stephen Meyer and John West join Dr. Dobson in a discussion about Intelligent Design and world origins from a scientific point of view.

You'd be a lot better at the art of debate if you addressed the issues instead of the opponent's personal characteristics, and also if you refrained from groundless assumptions. Of course, then you'd be a conservative...

"More nonsense. You really don't understand do you."

ID creationists contend that the work of an intelligent designer can be empirically detected in nature, but they evade questions about the designer’s identity and the mechanisms through which it works by insisting that detecting its activity does not require knowing its identity. They argue that ID is based on cutting-edge science. Yet even ID proponents with legitimate science credentials have never produced one iota of original scientific data to support these claims.

You would need to know every instance of a given phenomenon, past and future, to know for certain.

“Pigwiggle - I'm curious. Are you a physicist?”

“PW, I've read your posts. I know that you know that this isn't true. You have a much better grasp of statistics than to believe this.”

“BTW, PW, do you really believe the ID should be taught in schools as science!?”

“The scientific method requires no such proof as you well know. Results must be reproducible.”

“second of all not everyone agrees about the Copenhagen interpretation”

“Putting a thermometer outside does not change the temperature of the outside”