Wherever it leads . . . Really?

I've been following the 'Controversy', but haven't been doing much posting . . . going to try and get back into it, usually with something I find more humorous than exasperating.  Here is something I did find hilarious . . . it's from little casey luskin, one of those DI'ers.  I've mentioned his name a few times over the years.  Well the latest blog post over on at "Evolution News" goes into one of the little guy's audio rants really cracked me up.  In it he claims that he and his fellow DI'ers are following the evidence wherever it leads.  I have to ask the question . . . "Really?"

Simply put, how can you be following anything wherever it leads if you already have the destination all picked out?  Think about it. casey and friends KNOW what the final answer is to any question in biology, the Christian God . . . oh yea they like to try and confuse people and call it an 'intelligent designer', but that is nothing but word-smithing.  They already have, what they consider, all the answers.  So how can they claim to be following the evidence wherever it might lead?  The reality is they cannot.  But of course when does reality bother casey and his buds.

I do like the little bait and switch the text lead-in on the webpage says:

" Unlike materialism, which MUST find a naturalistic explanation for everything in nature, ID is without bias, making no prior to commitment as to whether any given phenomenon should be explicable in natural or design terms."

Aside from their erroneous labeling of 'science' as 'materialism', look at the attempt to offer you a binary set.  From his words you seem to have two choices, a naturalistic explanation OR design.  I think he is seriously overstating the issue, or maybe seriously understating it.  The opposite of  natural is not design, the opposite of natural is supernatural. 

Why can't casey and his buds state it that way?  For the same reason the Wedge Strategy Document decided to remove all references to a deity in their marketing plans.  They do not want you to remember that their explanation is all about the supernatural.  When people realize that, they tend to get off the Intelligent Design wagon.  Only serious adherents, who realize that they are one in the same, tend to stay past such a realization.

If you disagree, you might remember that the Dover Trial Defendants were pushing for Creationism long before they tried the tactic of ID.  How about the 'cdesign proponentists' from the cut & replace editing of the 'Of Panda's and People' textbook.  Even here in Ohio back in 2002 the members of the school board pushing ID earlier pushed creationism (Deborah Owens Fink was the ringleader of that particular embarrassment).

Science, by its very nature, will continue to look for answers that exist in the real world.  The reason is surprisingly simple, those are the only answers that work, that make any sense, that are repeatable and usable.  Supernatural answers mean little.  While you might pray that your car starts in the morning, the reality is that the natural processes that went into the design and maintenance of your vehicle is why it starts.  Tell you what, let's take two cars that refuse to start.  Take one to a mechanic and the other to the religious figure of your choice.  Guess which one end up being repaired and starting well before the other?