Jastrow’s own words concerning himself are: “When an astronomer writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters.” This is how he begins the book from which the quotation I used is found. He’s an agnostic, but one who asked some really great questions about the origin of life and God.

I’ve heard of Jastrow, but don’t know what his religious affiliation is. I have to tell you, though–he sure doesn’t talk like any agnostic I ever heard of. And I’m saying that as an agnostic myself.

I got the PJ quote from Wikiquote. They attributed it to an interview with World Magazine, 30 November 1996.

That is a good Philip Johnson quote. What is it’s source?

Evanescent makes an important point. Virtually without exception, everyone who supports intelligent design is a conservative Christian. If ID turns out to be true after all (which it won’t) it will be the first scientific theory you have to be a Christian to see the merits of.
ID is not a valid scientific theory at all. In reality, it is nothing more than a slick marketing campaign, the purpose of which is to sneak theism into the public schools.
It is heavily funded by the fringes of the religious right almost exclusively, and its’ proponents are quite clear who this mysterious designer is when they’re speaking to their supporters. Dembski has said

“Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.”

while the man considered to be the father of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, has even said

“This (the intelligent design movement) isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science, it’s about religion and philosophy.”

I appreciate you attempting to draw a distinction between ID and creationism, but there is not really any difference. ID is creationism attempting to be scientific, but ID cannot be scientific. ID is creationism in disguise, as an attempt to get it taught in schools. Whether ID is true or false it cannot be scientific because it is not a natural explanation using empirical research. ID is no more scientific than astrology.

This is why ID advocates spend so much time failing to attack evolution instead of actually doing their own research.

You may differentiate between ID and religion, but there is not one advocate of creationism and intelligent design that doesn’t have a religious agenda. That is quite suspicious don’t you think?

Whereas people who except the fact of evolution are atheists, agnostics, theists etc. Science and evolution is open to anyone, regardless of belief.

In other words, intelligent design can be forgiven if you’re ignorant.

Creationism is a metaphysical supernatural explanation based on religious stories that assumes design exists, and then points to a designer. But obviously this is circular reasoning. There is no evidence of design.

And if complexity = design, who designed the most complex being of all, god? And before you say “god doesn’t require a designer”, that’s special pleading. You cannot define god into existence. If god doesn’t require a designer because, well, he just doesn’t, then the universe doesn’t require one because, well, it just doesn’t.

If we can observe “good design” in the universe when we can also observe bad design. Why is about 85% of this planet uninhabitable for humans?? Isn’t that a glaring error when you think it was made for us? Why are there vestigial organs and junk DNA?

For that matter, why does all the evidence we’ve ever uncovered point to evolution? Is god trying to play a trick on us?

I recently wrote several articles on intelligent design and evolution, you are more than welcome to read them:
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/common-descent-uncommon-knowledge/
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/08/01/my-evolution-elucidation-wed-1st-aug-07/
http://ellis14.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/intelligent-design-is-not-science-mon-30th-jul-07/

I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Best regards.