The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just 'accept' it, based on a few statements.

To the lurkers out there who may be more open to non orthodoxy, consciousness is not only external to the brain/ body, but may allow you non corporeal adventures some day. The body is merelly a vehicle for an earthbound experience.

But the point of my comment (original) was that ID and Creationism are totally separate concepts, though with some commonality. In a venn diagram, I'd give them only about 10% overlap.

The plausibility of my genetic conjectures have nothing to do with the other speculations that followed them. If they are viable, then my predications will be confirmed.

So tell me, do you feel that consciousness is a synapic brain function? If so, what abou OOB experiences? Are they all BS? The brain is an interface to body functions and sensory input. The only thing it has to do with consciousness is to color it, i.e. mood, personality, inherited character traits. These conclusions are based on my own observations, and some emperical testing I have done. But I didn't expect that you or most others to just 'accept' it, based on a few statements.

To the lurkers out there who may be more open to non orthodoxy, consciousness is not only external to the brain/ body, but may allow you non corporeal adventures some day. The body is merelly a vehicle for an earthbound experience.

But the point of my comment (original) was that ID and Creationism are totally separate concepts, though with some commonality. In a venn diagram, I'd give them only about 10% overlap.

By the way, this comment was hidden from view when it incurred -5 points, so I'm reposting it here. But I do have a suggestion: When you disagree, consider posting the point(s) of your disagreement, rather than voting it down with one finger. Or is this too much of an intellectual challenge for you? I think the answer is obvious.

They [the Discovery Institute] also state that ID is not Bible based, nor is it the same as Creationism. They state, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism."

I know perfectly well what the IDists claim to the public. The only question is whether this claim is genuine or whether it is an evasive tactic designed after Edwards v. Aguillard. I think the latter is more likely, because

• they made a similar change of tactics after the Kitzmiller trial to now endorse the "teach the controversy" meme.

• numerous sources (see posts above) point directly to the Christian culture war effort underlying the entire endeavour. The entire ID motivation is explicitly conservative Christian. Their conclusions are given beforehanded: to accord with Christianity's teachings.*

• while e.g. Behe supports common descent, many IDists don't. To an allegedly scientific field regarding life's history on Earth, such discordance is simply disqualifying.

• the exact same textbook that taught creationism turned into an ID textbook with barely any editing. The authors were: 1st & 2nd ed., Davis (YEC & IDist) & Kenyon (creationist & IDist); 3rd ed., Dembski & Wells (both IDists).

• the designer agnosticism is completely indefensible in scientific terms and most obviously a tactical move. No genuinely scientific field would a priori rule out research into the designer's identity if not to circumvene the Establishment Clause.

• even the Templeton Foundation, whose entire rasion d'être is to "reconcile" religion and science, disavows the DI as a scientifically vacuous PR front. As the Vatican has done.

In short, the DI's insistence on the non-committal to the Bible is a dishonest front. The same people, the same arguments, the same tactics, the same goals, the same lies, the same quote mining, the same books are involved. The difference between OEC and ID is the explicit deference to the Bible, and this difference can be fully accounted for by the DI's dishonesty.

Once the DI officially has endorsed any finding that contradicts central conservative Christian tenets, I'll grant them and you the benefit of the doubt. For now, they haven't earned it.

*: Also, Dembski:

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it."

Johnson:

"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"