There's an important distinction to make here since you're saying ID theory is a legal strategy. Legal strategies are one thing scientific theories are another.
Is there some reason you ignored the question whether or not irreducible-complexity was a legal strategy?
We don't want to setup a strawman. ID theory is a scientific theory, not a legal strategy.
The theory of evolution is not a legal strategy anymore than ID theory is. Variation, heredity, and selection aren't legal strategies any more than irreducible-complexity or specified-complexity.
All you've done here is repeat your original assertion without adding any supporting evidence or advancing any new arguments. As far as IC being a legal strategy, it's not directly that. It's one aspect of ID creationism, which as I've shown and a federal court has ruled, is most definitely a legal strategy.
Sure, I'm interested as long as we understand the difference between ID theory and the views of those associated with it. In other words, climate science is one thing while the real world impact of climate science is another.
First, there is no "ID theory". In science, an explanation only becomes a "theory" when it successfully explains a wide range of observations/phenomena, and stands up to scientific testing. IDC hasn't explained a single thing nor has it ever been scientifically tested.
As far the list of reasons why ID is not science and is a form of creationism, let's start with....
Consider Paul Nelson's article to young-earth creationists, "
Life in the Big Tent: Traditional Creationism and the Intelligent Design Community" (PDF). In that article, he describes the history of how IDC came to be...
Let's begin with some history. The year 1997 marks a noteworthy turning point in the American debate over the science and philosophy of origins. In that year, a long cultural battle that had begun more than a quarter century earlier with Henry Morris and John Whitcomb's classic, The Genesis Flood, in 1961 appeared to many onlookers to have come decisively to an end when the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declared creation-science to be a religious belief.
Note how he starts off by referring to the impact of the SCOTUS ruling against creationism in public schools.
The two-model approach to the origin's controversy was now dead.
Note: The "two model approach" argues that the only explanations for the history of life on earth are evolution and creationism, and that an argument against evolution is therefore an argument for creationism.
Edwards v. Aguillard seemingly had ended the public debate over origins. A revolution from an unexpected quarter, however, was about to occur. In 1987, Phillip Johnson, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, was taking a year's sabbatical in London, England.
Every day on the walk to his office, he passed a book shop where Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, were on sale. Curious, Johnson bought the books and read them through. He noticed immediately that the ostensible issues of Edwards v. Aguillard were not the real issues at all
The creationists in Louisiana never had a chance. Because of the way science was defined in the debate, the very possibility of evidence against Darwinian evolution had been excluded at the outset. Reading the amicus briefs in Edwards v. Aguillard...Johnson discovered that...the ground rules of science had tilted the playing field irrevocably in favor of Darwinian evolution.
In Darwin on Trial, the influential book that drew out of his 1987 insights, Johnson wrote, "The academy does define science in such a way that advocates of supernatural creation may neither argue for their own position nor dispute the claims of the scientific establishment".
So here we see a prominent ID creationist (and young-earth creationist) from the Discovery Institute referring to ID as part of their battle against "naturalism" (as do young-earth creationists) and explaining how ID creationism arose out of the ashes of the SCOTUS ruling against creationism, which is entirely consistent with the changes in the textbook "Of Pandas and People" we discussed earlier.
In June 1993, Johnson invited several of the mostly younger members of that community to a conference at the California beach town of Pajaro Dunes. Present were scientists and philosophers who themselves would later become well-known such as biochemist Michael Behe...mathematician and philosopher, William Dembski...and developmental biologist, Jonathan Wells...
We see that after the SCOTUS ruling, when everyone thought the goal of teaching creationism in schools was dead, Phillip Johnson thought of a new way to argue for creationism and called together what was later to become the key members of the ID movement and enlisted them to aid in his religious apologetics movement.
Johnson saw that allowing for the possibility of design as special divine action, for instance, God creating human beings directly, meant that one must also allow for other possibilities, such as God electing, if he so chose, to use an evolutionary process that wasn't self-designed.
I believe, Johnson wrote, that "a God exists who could create out of nothing if he wanted to do so. But he might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead". God could have created everything in six 24-hour days or not.
The fundamental point is to allow for the possibility of design. The scientific narrative of design, when God acted, and how, might capture any number of competing theories.[/INDENT]
Once again we see the fellows at the Discovery Institute explaining quite clearly that ID is explicitly about God, which = creationism, and how He created living things, which immediately removes it from the realm of science.
continued....
