On the contrary, they seem to have a very good idea of what they are trying to do. What they have difficulty doing is a) publishing anything that comes even vaguely close to looking like science, and b) hiding their theistic agenda (i.e. Wedge) behind a veneer of same.

For a populist rag like the Mail this may cause them to re-think their usual conservative stance.

While I commend your hopeful enthusiasm, I sincerely doubt it. Happy to be proven wrong, though!

Letter of complaint sent to Nominet [https://secure.nominet.org.uk/account/whois-complaint.html]:

Sir,

I belief the above domain [righttoknow.org.uk], the owners of which are currently exercising their power to opt-out from the WHOIS database, which as a political-action entity supported by two Members of Parliament, should be subject to the principles of openness and accountability to the public interest that we, as UK citizens, now require for our political representatives.

As this web site's purpose is to call for support of political action, notwithstanding the controversial nature of the topic, I believe that it is essential for the purposes of accountability that this domain can be audited and tracked back to its sponsors.

If you decide that opting-out is reasonable for such purposes, I would ask that you clarify the rules as to when the opt-out from the WHOIS database is appropriate concerning such political entities.

Yours faithfully,

<my name>

At least the guy hasn't changed his name to "Sam Beckett"...

I'll type this slowly, so that I don't confuse you:

Evolution. Does. Not. Deal. With. Abiogenesis. At. All.

Also, reverting to "science can't explain X, therefore ID is true" is just the basest form of an argument from ignorance (or lack of imagination). Or perhaps too much imagination if one is happy to Make Shit Up™ just so one doesn't have to say "well, actually, you know, I don't know how it happened. I'll wait and see what any cogent evidence says".

Or, to use your post's title, "The Discovery Institute is correct – intelligent design is not creationism", but their "intelligent design" is.

Are you also saying, then, that when discussing the DI, we should always prefix the "ID" part with "creationist"? Shouldn't we also then prefix this with "christian" as opposed to islamic or any other religious motivation? What about adding "protestant", etc. too?

Nobody is arguing for any kind of, as you say, "pure" ID in a vacuum, without laying claim to precis knowledge about the nature of the designer(s). Well, I suppose deists might, but the best answer they can come up with is an argument from either ignorance or incredulity, neither of which seem to bother them one iota. Not that I particularly mind this attitude...

ID, by definition, is creationist (or at the very least "designerist", but again nobody is arguing for just design.

What the DI do is the creationist flavour of "intelligent design": it's still creationism. It's just wearing a stolen labcoat and pointing stupidly at empty Erlenmeyer flasks while waving a bible hidden by a clipboard.

BTW, it seems that Nagel isn't directly associated with the DI, he just made an argument that they happen to like (to paraphrase and précis: "what reason do we have to assume that it was evolution by natural selection that created 'the mind'?"). They've decided—unsurprisingly—to interpret this as "evolution didn't make mind, therefore design (and therefore Jesus)".

Aside from the tweets, here's my take on this from a while back: The Wedge Strategy: why “intelligent design” is a religiously political, not scientific, movement . In that I call them c/IDists, with creationism being a specialising modifier of ID (i.e. a subset).

Saying that, I don't know of any non-theistic (as opposed to non-religious) proponents of ID except the Raëlians, but they don't even pretend try to wedgify science.

Cllr Jon Kaye said:

The prayer enables councillors to not only reflect on what is said, but to think about how we conduct ourselves during the subsequent three-hour meetings.

So Mr Kaye is unable to conduct himself professionally and with due diligence unless he has previously bowed his head and mouthed a platitude to his god?

Glad he's not on my local council, then.

I'm so very sorry for your loss. Please accept my condolences. Your updates have been both saddening and thought-provoking, and I appreciate you sharing your story.

Take care.