So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part XII)

I have to wonder, if there is nothing religious about ID, why this:

"On a new episode of ID the Future, author J. Warner Wallace talks with Center for Science & Culture research coordinator Brian Miller about the role that Wallace’s work as a cold-case detective played in his first analyzing the evidence for intelligent design. 

. . . 

That evidence played a key role in Wallace’s own spiritual and intellectual journey. He says he was attracted to the story and person of Jesus. However, in the course of exploring religion questions, he asked himself whether science and reason allowed for any view inconsistent with philosophical materialism." ("A Cold-Case Detective Weighs the Evidence for Intelligent Design")

Aside from the idea of the DI even has a 'research coordinator', a question we sort of already addressed in "The Discovery Institute has Opened an ID Center in Brazil! Quite Possibly the Perfect Retirement Job!", I underlined a couple of points to illustrate things that make it harder and harder to separate Intelligent Design from its religious roots.

No, I haven't listened to the podcast.  You might think I am remiss is not doing so, but when the description is so obviously theistic, do you really need to put yourself through it?  I don't believe so.  Like the DI's pseudo-scientific writings -- where they use lots of scientific-sounding language, I would expect this pseudo-detective to use lots of investigatory-sounding words and phrases, but at the heart of it is his personal spiritual journey -- which makes it all suspect from the start.

Now you might think I am overstepping things by calling him a pseudo-detective, after all, he is a detective, or at least he was one at one time.  However, is he acting as a detective when using his 'spiritual journey' as a basis for this conversation?

This is similar to a question we've dealt with before, "Whether or not a Creationist can be a Scientist?"  We've answered it simply that Creationists can be scientists -- but only if they are able to set-aside their creationist-beliefs and look at the world in a more objective fashion.  Those that cannot will forever be known as 'Creation Scientists' and their impact on real science will be marginal.

Those who are acting as scientists, especially those recognized for their work as scientists are those who are produced scientific work that is not based on their beliefs, but on supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  Little kennie ham himself once identified such an individual a few years back.  Of course kennie focused on his beliefs -- but never seemed to find a tie between his beliefs and his work.  We talked about him in "Documentary vs Documentary-Style -- aka Reality vs Fiction":

"A Renowned Creation Scientist, Inventor of MRI".  No one has ever pointed to any part of the theories behind magnetic imaging and said "and here is where God did such-and-such." or "here is the part that is based on creationism".  The celebrated work was not based on any religious belief, but on actual science -- supportable, falsifiable, and explainable science.  

So I am sure this detective has had success as a detective, but I am equally sure his religious beliefs were not mentioned in any report when he actually closed a case, much in the way Raymond Damadian's beliefs were not part of his MRI work. Therein lies the difference between a scientist, or a detective, who is a Creationist and a 'Creation Scientist/Detective'.  So when I refer to him as a pseudo-detective, that's the point I am trying to make.  He's no longer acting as a 'detective' when he starts using his religion, but as a pseudo-detective.  But back to my main point.

If there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design, then such a discussion wouldn't be based on his spiritual journey.  But since you cannot intellectually separate the two, listening to this podcast would be a waste of time. This is nothing more than another believer couching his belief in terms that try and mislead the listener into thinking they are some sort of objective investigator, when you already know from the start that it isn't true.

In my opinion anyone who can separate the two is lying and doing their best to mislead people.  If you disagree, just look at the words and 'tactics of mistake' the DI has been using for years.  They try and try to divest themselves of Creationism and Religion, not because they don't believe in it, but because they know it places a huge legal roadblock in worming their way into the classroom.  Look at their marketing efforts and who they keep targeting.  Are they doing the scientific legwork to gain actual acceptance within the scientific community? No, they are marketing to religious groups for support and politicians for legal assistance in pushing their religious agenda.

Of course you can read all their denials, and then they post something like this which makes the ties that bind them tighter and tighter to Creationism.    They whine and bitch about the metaphorical noose that spelled such disaster for them in Dover, and then tighten it even more with posts like this.