Another lap around the "Is ID religion?" track
Here's Casey Luskin on those who "misunderstand" the nature of ID (so many of us do, you know).
Despite Holden's editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither. As a passage from the early pro-ID textbook Of Pandas and People explains, there is “intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot.… All [ID] implies is that life had an intelligent source.” (Pandas, 2nd ed., pgs. 127, 161). ID does not postulate a supernatural creator, and it is not focused on proving any kind of religious scripture.Here's Luskin on the second part of a paper about giraffe evolution (or not) by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Lönnig claims to be using methodology guided by "intelligent design").
Lönnig has now written part 2 of his refutation of this evolutionary tall tale, where he now shifts the focus away from paleontology and on to giraffe anatomy, diet, behavior, and zoology, tackling evolutionary hypotheses about giraffe origins. [...] Lönnig suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for those investigating giraffe research, and these questions demonstrate he is right.Here's the Acknowledgements section (#13) of Lonnig's paper (note the last line).
I would like to thank Professor Granville Sewell, Mathematics Department of the University of Texas El Paso for the English translation of Part 2 of this giraffe paper. Mr. Roland Slowik prepared the figure showing the simultaneity of the genera. Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt (physicist, Munich) gave me the German translation of the book of G. R. Taylor The Great Evolutionary Mystery as a present. Last (and of course) not least, I thank the One without whom there would be no giraffes (Revelation 4:11).It's becoming almost axiomatic that the most reliable refutation of ID propaganda is to be found in the arguments of ID's own "theorists" and proponents.