Joined: May 2002
The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis."
William Dembski, in his 1999 Touchstone article “Signs of Intelligence,” confirmed ID's religious foundation assuring readers, "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Later (March 7, 2004) he stated that, “Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he’s not getting it.”
IDC intellectual Jonathan Wells admitted that he was directed to study biology by, "... Father's (self-proclaimed Messiah, Rev. Sun Moon) words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, ..." Then he studied biology!
The godfather of IDC, lawyer Phillip Johnson following his late life conversion experience decided to reject science. Michael Behe has admitted that his creationism, and promotion of IDC follows his religious beliefs. While under oath in the Dover PA Federal Court creationism trial, Behe admitted that unlike evolution, there is no scientific research supporting ID. ID's religious foundation in creationism is fully exposed in Barbara Carroll Forrest, and Paul R. Gross (2004) "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" Oxford University Press.
The next significant error was their claim, "Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion)."
Again Dr. William Dembski clearly states the IDC position;
"ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your (science gh) pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. (ISCID, 2002)" In the 2005 Dover Pa. "Pandas" trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover) intelligent design creationist Michael Behe was forced to admit under oath that under any definition of science that would include IDC would also include astrology.
These are not all the errors made by Levy and Smith, but I'll leave some meat on the bone for others to chew.
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."
L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"