Illogical Deceit Theory

Why “illogical”? See the Fallacies of Logic section, a dissection of the fallacies of logic to be found in many arguments, specifically the arguments of creationists, pro-‘intelligent design theory’ debaters (proids) and professional proponents of "intelligent design" (idists.)

Why “deceit”? The claims of idists that idism does not speculate on the nature of the ‘designer’ are deceitful in view of all the evidence that links idism to religion. Any doubts concerning such evidence should be dispelled by googling abiogenesis, or "intelligent design", and observing the number of religion oriented websites. One has to wonder why, if the proposals of ‘intelligent design theory’ had true merit, the professional proponents of 'id' theory should have chosen to lie in court.

Claims that ‘intelligent design theory’ (idism) is science and not theology are also deceitful in view of the anti-evolutionist and religious stance taken by proids. God cannot be examined by science, so idism is religious both in subject matter and in approach. See also The Wedge Document and On the teaching of Pseudoscience. (External: On the Teaching of Pseudoscience and The Wedge Document.)

The arguments of idism belong in the realm of philosophy and not in the science curriculum. Therefore, discussion of idism ought to be confined to university level philosophy courses. There the principles of critical thinking ought to be within the intellectual grasp of most students. Further, the dissection of fallacies of logic is pertinent to the course curriculum in philosophy.

In the more than 10 years since idism has been attracting the donations of proids, idists and fodis have not performed a scientific investigation nor produced a single peer-reviewed scientific publication specifically related to idism.

___

For brevity, intelligent design theory will be abbreviated “idism”. In so far as religion appeals to the emotions and to faith-despite-absence-of-direct-evidence the term 'id' seems appropriate because it refers to the feeling, non-rational part of the brain.

For brevity, those who promote idism will be abbreviated “idists”. This is a more polite term than is sometimes employed. However, some of the chief advocates of idism do have higher education, and ought to be considered more intelligent than the less polite terminology implies. Haven't guessed the term? Substitute 'o' for the first 's' in "idists. Aside from the inaccuracy of this term, employing it renders the evolutionist debater guilty of an ad hominem fallacy.

Internet debaters who are pro-idism will be abbreviated “proids”, and while some of these individuals may seem, within vernacular usage, to warrant the discarded appelation above, committing ad hominem fallacies is not good argumentation.

For accuracy the purported intelligent designer, 'id', will be referred to as God. The ultimate point being that philosophers can speculate about the existence of God, but that science cannot, by its naturalist nature examine the supernatural.