Discovery Institute says Forrest distorting “Intelligent Design”

What else could they say? The whole strategy of Intelligent Design is to claim that it’s science and not religion. Forrest is doing her utmost to demonstrate that it’s religion and not science.

As I’ve said in the past, I’m willing to give the Discovery Institute some benefit of the doubt on this one, BUT if it’s science, then the theory needs to address what, how, when, why and WHO. They can’t continue to take what they call an agnostic position on the “designer” since if it’s impossible for a designer to exist, then it’s impossible for there to have been design.

Before I will begin to take ID seriously, it has to hypothesize WHO (or WHAT) the designer is, HOW he (she? it?) managed to do the design, WHEN the design occurred and WHY the design was done. All of these questions are addressed by evolution as follows:

WHO (or WHAT) = Natural processes
HOW = Random Mutation, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection
WHEN = Over the course of 4.5 billion years
WHY = Once things got going, simply to better insure the survival of the species. As for the genesis of the species, there may be no WHY, simply the random convergence of natural processes. In other words, we could be simply a cosmic accident.

I might point out that Creationsm, if I remember my catechism properly, also addresses all of these questions.

WHO = The Lord God
HOW = Through his Divine Power
WHEN = About 6,000 years ago according to Bishop Usher
WHY = So we could love God in this world and be happy with him in the next.

Ok, Intelligent Design dudes, your turn.