But lets face it. Uncommon Descent does sort of promote that attitude. For the vast majority of IDers it’s not about science, is it?

However, the point I was making is relevant to ID’s claim for legitimacy as a science. For example, I have this response in a discussion: “In the case of ID advocates, a theory may be the simple claim that a specific system was designed.

That is a key misunderstanding of science which ID proponents continue to advocate (e.g attempts to change definitions of science in educational standards). No simple claim or inference is a theory. Neither the claim for design. the claim for evolution, the claim for a geocentric solar system or the claim for a heliocentric solar system. No claim like this warrants publications. That only comes with development of the the claim to a hypothesis, the collection of data and other evidence, and testing against reality. Then we have the material for publication.

Only when the ID people go on from their claim to do this work will it be seriously considered by the scientific community.

The fact that the ID people don’t do this yet insist on acceptance and even the right to teach their claims in schools indicates that they aren’t interested in science – just politics and ideology.

Poe’s Law perhaps? Or possibly the fact that it was posted on Uncommon Descent, the blog of William Dembski (and friends) who told the Southern Baptist Texan that those who need to see Expelled (A film that tries to implicate Darwin’s discoveries as key to the Holocaust) are the “parents of children in high school or college, as well as those children themselves, who may think that the biological sciences are a dispassionate search for truth about life but many of whose practitioners see biology, especially evolutionary biology, as an ideological weapon to destroy faith in God”.

What was I thinking??

The point of my article is that the theoretical connection between Darwin and holocaust is not science, no legit science journal would ever publish it, and every rejection would be valid.

I was trying to get the audience at UD to realize that if they want to promote ID as science then they need to understand what is science and what isn’t science. I wanted them to figure out for themselves that the Darwin/holocaust rubbish (and it IS rubbish) has nothing to do with the science of design detection.

Evidently I made the common error of overestimating my audience and that includes you, Ken.