Is Intelligent Design Religion?

One of the major arguments against Intelligent Design being admitted as an accepted area of study within the scientific community is that ID is not science at all--far from it.   The Intelligent Design Movement is a religion.

One Darwinist gentleman said (quoting from "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"):  "Get Intelligent Design in the schools today and we can have school prayers tomorrow."

In fact, Darwinists somewhat self-righteously claim that ID is not only a religion, it is religion masquerading as legitimate science.  These men and women see such alleged pretending as an unforgivable sin--a slide into backwards thinking that can threaten the purity of Darwinist science.  However, one must go to the facts of the matter for oneself, taking into account the claims and issues on both sides of the matter, if one is to form an opinion with any hope of it being a reasonable one.

But what do the proponents of ID claim?  Is the evidence they cite scientific by nature or religious?  Are they, despite their many claims to the contrary, pushing religion?  

Intelligent Design Theory suggests the following:  There are some aspects within nature that are best explained through the presence of an intelligent designer.  What ID does not claim--at least as of yet--is who that intelligent designer is.  Some believe he/she/it is God, some believe it is evidence of aliens, others have no clue as of yet; however, those who study the Intelligent Design Theory in a scientific manner have yet to make a definitive claim.  They continue to assert that it is through scientific processes alone that they hope to find the answer to this question if, indeed, such an answer exists.  (It might seem they have been too busy battling for the right to be heard to come up with a prime suspect on that front.)  Ironically, it is the Darwinists that are the first to jump to the conclusion that this "intelligent designer" is God--but, of course, this is an accusation, not an admission.  The Darwinists are very concerned, and for good reason, that the Intelligent Designer will somehow be revealed to be God.  If this ever happens, all they have worked for, they feel, will be lost.

However, consider this question:  If the intelligent designer is eventually scientifically proven to be the work of aliens (who, themselves evolved through natural processes of which we are not yet aware), would ID then be science or religion?  Well, science, of course, because the proof would have come through scientific processes.  Religion, in this scenario, would have no place.

But, what if the intelligent designer is proven (to everyone's scientific satisfaction) to be God, after all?  Would ID then be science or religion?  Well, again, we would have to concede that if God's existence was scientifically proven, ID would be primarily science.  God would be then seen as a Being--albeit a very powerful and possibly somewhat scary one--in the same light that we now see the giant squid or Tyrannosaurus Rex (other beings that were also thought to be nothing more than myths before proven to exist by science).  

So, no matter what the outcome of the question, the Intelligent Design Movement--as long as it sticks to scientific methods in their pursuit of answers rather than religious ones--is, indeed, science, not religion.

Intelligent Design vs. Creationism

Is Intelligent Design Just "Beating the Dead Horse" of Creationism?

One of the major arguments against the Intelligent Design Movement is that it is just re-heated religious creationism trying to gain a foothold within the schools and governing laws of the nation under the guise of a scientific theory.  P. Z. Meyers, atheist, Darwinist, Prof. of Biology at the University of Minnesota and author of the blog "Pharyngula", states, "Intelligent Design is a set of excuses to squeeze creationism into the classrooms."*  

The proponents of ID, however, disagree.  They insist that Intelligent Design is simply an alternative theory to use in answering the big questions of life which, they claim, Darwinism simply does not and can not.  While Darwinists insist ID isn't science at all, ID-ers continue to provide scientific data and theory to back their claim that it certainly could be approached through a purely scientific process--if the "powers that be" would be more open-minded about the possibilities.

So, what are the differences between Creationism--the theory that God made everything--and the Intelligent Design Theory?  

Paul Nelson, Ph. D., professor at BIOLA University in Los Angeles, CA, explained the Intelligent Design Movement best when he stated, "Creationism properly understood begins with the Bible and says, 'How can I fit the Bible into the data of science?'  Intelligent Design doesn't do that.  Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are better explained as a result of intelligence.  ...Intelligent Design is a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation."*

Seems straightforward enough to me.  Any questions?

*Quotes taken from the documentary:  "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"