Am I against Intelligent Design?

We [evolution supporters] haven't closed the door on anything. What we have said, repeatedly, is that the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) need to do the research to support their position. Since they are unwilling or unable to do so, it does not belong in the science classroom, it is not a scientific theory, it's apparently a non-starter because they cannot make any headway in doing actual science.

How many real scientists act like they do? Since when do an actual working scientist postulate an idea, declare victory, and dare anyone to disagree with them? Never! Because that's not scientific methodology, but that it what they [ID proponents] are doing. An actual scientist does the legwork, makes the case, and then lets other scientists review and critique the work. They just keep trying to end run the actual work part.

If they want in the science classroom they have to do the work and then I will stand right next to them lobbying for their inclusion, but until they do so, don't come asking for my acceptance, they haven't earned it.

Let's see what do we get when we ask for science, we get long diatribes whining about evolution -- which does NOTHING to support ID.

What else do we get when we ask for science? We get popular press publications where the evidence and methodology is conspicuously missing. Of course in the POPULAR media, there really is no requirement for proof.

What do we get when we ask for science? We get a list of 44 documents CLAIMED to support ID presented to the Ohio State School Board -- however when examined the articles only mention ID and do so in the negative. Even the authors were surprised their work was presented so.

What do we get when we ask for science? We get unsupported conclusions, allegations of conspiracies, political and legal meanderings.

What we do not get is SCIENCE. All they have to do is the work, the real work, support their claims with more than belief, innuendo, and conjecture. Until they are willing to do that we will keep them relegated with the psychics, astrologers, and palmists -- where they belong. You earn a place at the table, and you don't earn it by whining.

So right now today I am anti-Intelligent Design for the simple reason it is not a scientific discipline. Not because it cannot be, but because its supporters have not taken the steps to make it so. They would rather whine, make arguments of logical fallacy, and appeal to emotions -- none of which makes what they have to say in any way science.