Over at Uncommon Descent,
Lee Bowman complains about people who say ID is a new movement:
Many cite Johnson as the founder of the current ID movement. Popularizer perhaps, but founder he was NOT, nor can he authoritatively be credited with setting its parameters. Luskin notes (as does Dembski in ‘Cosmic Pursuit’, 1998) that Charles Thaxton and Dean Kenyon first wrote on the subject during the ’80s. But is concept even that new?
“Throughout the centuries theologians have argued that nature exhibits features which nature itself cannot explain, but which instead require an intelligence over and above nature. From Church fathers like Minucius Felix and Basil the Great (3rd and 4th centuries) to medieval scholastics like Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas (12th and 13th centuries) to reformed thinkers like Thomas Reid and Charles Hodge (18th and 19th centuries), we find theologians making design arguments, arguing from the data of nature to an intelligence operating over and above nature.” (Wm. Dembski, ‘Cosmic Pursuit’, 1998)
(bold face added.)
If ID has such an ancient heritage, then I think it’s fair to ask why there aren’t any experimental results demonstrating ID. Who are the Isaac Newtons and James Clerk Maxwells of ID? Why isn’t there broader consensus amongst ID proponents of the basics of ID, such as the number of designers, the times and places when they operated, or even a definition of “complexity”?
If, on the other hand, ID is scientific, but too young to have produced any good results, then why should it be taught in public schools?