Intelligent Design Theory does not posit any specific creator. It simply points to evidence that suggests an “intelligence” of some kind was responsible for the origins of life as we know it. People are free to attribute that evidence to any god they so choose.
You are projecting a scenario that does not harmonize at all with IDT and could be extinguished by any capable teacher.
First, intelligent design is not a theory, and you cannot make it into one by constantly calling it "Intelligent Design Theory". Furthermore, this strategy of calling it a theory in order to get it considered to be one is fundamentally dishonest; it falls under the category of "repeat something often enough, and people will accept it because otherwise, you wouldn't be repeating it so often".
Second, you say that intelligent design doesn't posit any specific creator, and that people are free to pick whichever deity they want. This is more dishonesty. We both know that you are referring to a specific deity, because you do not believe that any other deities exist. So saying that people are free to pick whatever god they want is disingenuous, because you are not going to consider that their god of choice might actually be "The Creator".
Third, you have made it clear that you do not consider anything besides a god as a suitable candidate to create life. This makes it abundantly clear in conjunction with the last point that when you say "Intelligent Design Theory", you mean "Christian Creationism".
Fourth, this illustrates why you say that velkyn's scenario does not harmonize with intelligent design. Because someone who actually advocated what you say intelligent design is, rather than what you really mean, would have to consider which potential creator was actually responsible, instead of simply saying, "everyone's free to pick the creator they want". So by claiming to be inclusive, you actually undermine the "validity" of intelligent design.
Also, I'm waiting for your response to the "interesting comment" I made. Since you said you were anxiously awaiting it, I figured that you would hop right to it if you were going to respond at all. So the longer you wait, the more obvious you make your deception. Especially as you've responded to a tiny little part of the same post I put it in.
If intelligent design employed the scientific model, it would be demonstrable through the scientific method. Yet you have argued that the decision on whether intelligent design is valid is a personal one, implying that it isn't demonstrable through the scientific method, which in no way depends on personal decisions. There's one blatant and gross contradiction on your part. Shall we continue, or are you willing to concede that you have blatantly and grossly contradicted yourself on this subject?So, people are not permitted to decide on their own if they will pledge allegiance to the ToE? They are expected to just buy it hook-line-and-sinker because YOU think it is valid? Do you understand the implications of what you are suggesting ? This is a rather ludicrous assertion you are making here.
No, what's ludicrous is your assertion that the nature of reality is subject to personal beliefs. You claim (wrongly, I might add) that evolutionary theory is something that people "pledge allegiance to", as if it's a religion or a belief. This suggests that if they don't "pledge allegiance to" it, then it somehow becomes false, ala, their personal belief affects reality. The fact is otherwise; reality doesn't change based on what a person believes to be true.
I don't expect them to "buy it hook-line-and-sinker", because that defeats the purpose of scientific methodology. I don't want people to simply accept what I say, I want them to learn about what the theory really says and to determine and understand why it's true, not simply accept it because someone tells them to. If they disagree, then I want them to be able to explain it in a way that can be demonstrated to be valid and rigorously tested by others. Because then, everyone benefits, no matter who ends up having the right of it. Compare this to your idea of intelligent design, where you say that you want it to be taught side-by-side with evolutionary theory, and you want people to pick and choose which they want to believe based on what they want to be true. Nobody benefits in that case, because you have people choosing to believe in an idea not because it has evidence to support it, or is demonstrably valid, or is testable, but based on how they feel about it.
I agree with you but that's not what jaimehlers seems to think. He claims that we don't really have a choice in the matter.
Somehow, I'm not surprised by this statement. It would sure be convenient for you if this is what I actually thought, rather than what you think I seem to think.
To put it bluntly (and to repeat what I actually said), the scientific method does not depend on what a person wants to believe. If I were to concoct a hypothesis that did not stand up to testing and verification, it wouldn't matter how much I wanted to believe in that hypothesis, because it would have been falsified. Sure, I could choose to disregard what I discovered by applying the scientific method and believe in it anyway, but then I would no longer be practicing scientific methodology, and furthermore, my belief could not be demonstrated through the scientific method because it would be falsified. Therefore, my personal choice not to accept the results would accomplish nothing more than deluding myself.