And There is Still Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design

The Discovery Institute is bragging about a new member of their 'network'. The first was in Houston, the new one is in Colorado. Aside from each of those groups seeking donations, there is something I wanted to point out. First from the Houston group:

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis." (their About page)

and this form the latest announcement of their second group:

"the chapter will hold its first public event: at Colorado Christian University" (The Announcement)

Anyone notice what I noticed?   Houston meets in various churches and the first meeting of Colorado is in a Christian University.  And yet the DI continually claims there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design, that it's based on science.  Really?

If it were really science, would you ever hear a real scientist claiming this:

"In other words, the fact that the world appears to be designed is a testament to the truth that it is, in fact, designed."

It's from their Announcement of this new group.  So when something 'appears' that is 'a fact', seriously?  Let's look at a few examples:

• So just because that cup of coffee 'appears' cool enough to drink, it is 'in fact' cool enough to drink?  Anyone else ever burn the heck out of your mouth on a hot drink before?  
• Just because someone 'appears' to be trustworthy, you can 'in fact' trust them with your children?
• Movie trailers make movies look entertaining, anyone else ever walk out of a movie because it was so incredibly bad?  I have walked out of three, but there have been others that I walked out of quite disappointed!
• So . . . when I look at a picture of one of the DI fellows and I think that he, or she, 'looks' like a moron, they are in fact a moron?

There is a very old saying "Appearances can be Deceiving", but apparently the DI doesn't subscribe to that saying.  I have said for years that the DI takes the appearance of design as the fact of design, but this is one of the few times they explicitly stated it outright.

You know, for a second I was temping to offer the DI as an example of 'appearances can be deceiving', but they do not appear to be a scientific organization.  They do appear to be a religious ministry, and, for a change, their appearance is dead on.  However, that judgment is not made based solely on their appearance.  Therein lies the difference between the DI and the real world.

We don't judge books by their cover, we read the book and then make a judgment.  We don't judge the DI by its appearance as a religious ministry, we judge it by its actions, and those actions show that for all their posturing, they are a religious ministry.