Actually ALL ID can muster is that its Anti-Evolution. ID is NOT a “Theory” of its own, its really not even a honest hypothesis, ALL it can be is an argument against Evolution, A poor argument.
Its quite silly really, their whole argument amounts to “Well that’s too complex to figure out, whelp that settles it, God Did It, lets go home and pray.

Can you imagine if all humans were so stupid in all of history?
We would all be in caves still wondering what we had done to piss off whatever Thunder God that keeps winging thunderbolts at us.

We would all be in caves still wondering what we had done to piss off whatever Thunder God that keeps winging thunderbolts at us.

Uh, that would be Zeus, Thor, or Gene Simmons!

Actually, ID is anti-evolution

zilch, not as I see it, although with most anti-evolutionists (literalist readers of Genesis.  I won’t cede the term creationist, which I hold myself out to be, so I’ve more accurately defined them)I believe you are most likely right. 

A simple view of ID without getting bogged down in phlem or flagellen or cilia or silliness: Evolution is a theory about how organisms on this planet evolved.  It does not, nor does it attempt to, explain the origins of how the the compost from which the amino acids that have come to be us came into being. ID, as I understand it, explains that a Creator put the whole ball of wax in motion at the beginning with evolution as the design.  Some may say that makes for a weak Deity, but theology ain’t the business of scientists and science ain’t the business of theologians.

Regards,

ID, as I understand it, explains that a Creator put the whole ball of wax in motion at the beginning with evolution as the design.  Some may say that makes for a weak Deity, but theology ain’t the business of scientists and science ain’t the business of theologians.

Does this make as much sense as:
ID, as I understand it, explains that an alien life form from the planet Zurg put the whole ball of wax in motion at the beginning with evolution as the design.  Some may say that makes for a weak extraterrestial life form, but ufology ain’t the business of scientists and science ain’t the business of ufologians.

Does to me.

Consi:

zilch, not as I see it, although with most anti-evolutionists (literalist readers of Genesis.  I won’t cede the term creationist, which I hold myself out to be, so I’ve more accurately defined them)I believe you are most likely right.

Theistic evolution is fine, if a bit silly from our point of view.

Shit. That should read UFOLOGISTS, not ufologians. No offence to serious ufologists intended.

consi said:  but theology ain’t the business of scientists and science ain’t the business of theologians.

So you would agree that ID has no business being taught in science classes, which is the issue here?  That would be mighty welcome, coming from a Christian.

ID is simply a theory that recognises intelligent design pattern in life. Who/what/where the intelligent being is, should not be the problem here. To dismiss ID because it may imply that there might be a God / Gods, is utterly silly. The question should be, is it true that the evidence show that life is more likely to be designed rather than happened by chance.

I read many of the myths about ID in this page, go and read about those myths here:

http://www.arn.org/docs/teachingdesign_cohen.htm?article_id=4761

Darwinian Evolution has been protected from criticism. The credibility of evolution has suffered from a naturalistic assumption that protects it from the criticism of competing theories. Naturalistic theories of origins have been assumed to be true rather than proven to be true by evidence that rules out competing theories. This assumption has enabled evolutionary proponents to support Darwinian stories or “historical narratives” through the use of circular reasoning, speculation and false accounts of the kind discussed in Icons of Evolution (J. Wells, Regency Press, 2000). A naturalistic assumption allows evolutionary theory to accommodate itself to any evidence. The assumption robs it of falsifiability. Until evolutionary hypotheses are fairly and objectively weighed against the evidence for the competing design hypothesis, evolution will forever remain a speculative hypothesis.

The above has been quoted from: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ResponseToAAAS.htm

“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?� - Socrates

“With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of choice or design?� - Socrates

Well, Socrates was undoubtedly a pretty bright guy, but science has moved on in the last two thousand years.  Intelligent Design has not.

Scott, every one of your points has been dealt with here previously, and we’re still not buying ID, because it has zero information content.  Evolutionary theory, while necessarily incomplete, has oodles of supportive data, explanatory power, and makes predictions that can be tested.  ID’s data: “The Darwinians can’t explain how X evolved.  Must be designed”.  ID’s explanatory power:  “Now we know why we can’t explain everything”.  ID’s predictions: “We predict that life will be really complicated”

Duh.

Oh, and one more thing.  Scott, you say

To dismiss ID because it may imply that there might be a God / Gods, is utterly silly.

So, in your opinion, is Dr. Michael Behe “silly”?  Of course, I have my own opinion, but that’s of no moment here.  From Judge Jones’ ruling in the Dover case, where Behe testified:

Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

Ah, Scott presents us with yet another remarkable example of why the label IDiot is so apropos.

If the facts are showing us that the variation of specieses couldn’t have been ‘evolved’ from simpler life forms, why should we only stick with the old evolution theory?

Yes sure, religious people prefer the ID theory over evolution, but that doesn’t make the theory wrong.

Besides, the school (from what I read ofcourse) was only telling the students that there is another theory called ID, its not really teaching ID as such. Whats wrong with that? Evolution theory hasn’t given us the answer, and it is only a theory afterall ( It’s Constitutional But Not Smart to Teach Intelligent Design in Schools )

Another article:

Intelligent Design Theory: Why it matters

We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws. Scientists already use the design inference intuitively in fields such as cryptography, archaeology and forensics. When applied to nature’s fine-tuned laws, DNA sequences and Behe’s irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the clear conclusion is that they are intelligently designed.
(read the complete article on the url above)

Oh, and I also read, that once, big bang was treated with suspicion just like ID now.

We now have a reliable scientific method, formalized by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski (in The Design Inference, Cambridge University Press, 1998), for detecting designed objects and distinguishing them from the products of chance and impersonal laws.

No, we don’t: we have what Dembski claims to be a reliable method, and Dembski is in no position to know what evolution is and is not capable of producing.

I have nothing against telling students about ID, as long as it is not in a science class, since ID is not science.  It could be mentioned in comparative religion or political science classes, as another attempt to introduce religion into a properly secular forum.  But ID has shot itself in the foot so many times now that it is rapidly becoming history…

Oh, and I also read, that once, big bang was treated with suspicion just like ID now.

Ah - a common variation on the ‘Galileo gambit’ and dumb as ever.  Scott, most new hypotheses are wrong.  The ones that have survived to become accepted scientific theory are supported by data, are correspondence with other fields, are supported by experiment (when practical) and are still subject to scientific inquiry.

BTW - two things puzzle me and you might be just the guy to explain them.  First, why do creationists always bring in the big bang?  It has nothing at all to do with either abiogenesis or evolution.  Second, given that the big bang is the ONE big scientific theory that might support the notion of a god, why do so many creationists oppose it (as if scientific theories were up for popular vote)?

Doh! - that should be “… show correspondence with other fields...”

correspondence with other fields

That’s quite hillarious actually, since evolution doesn’t correspondence to other fields. For start, it doesn’t go well against the principle thermodynamics.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v7i3f.htm

That’s quite hillarious actually, since evolution doesn’t correspondence to other fields.

Really? Explain then why it is the basis of every other scientific field in current study. The issue of thermodynamics as it relates to evolution has been covered at length on this site. If you familiarize yourself with the site, you’ll soon discover this for yourself. Here’s some more material that resolves the alleged inconsistencies between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

I personally have no problem with both theories being taught in schools, however they need to be taught in the proper context. ie Evolution in science lessons as it is a valid scientific theory, and intelligent design in religious education as it is not a valid scientific theory, because it relies on theology (ie god made it happen) to explain itself.

Why this argument is still being endlessly debated I don’t know. When the day comes that someone can scientifically prove the existence of god then perhaps ID will have a place alongside evolution as a valid scientific theory, until then it’s just another case of people insisting that apples are oranges.

ie Evolution in science lessons as it is a valid scientific theory, and intelligent design in religious education as it is not a valid scientific theory, because it relies on theology (ie god made it happen) to explain itself.

I think that’s a great idea. I too would have no problem with ID being taught in, say, a philosophy class. But the moment that conservatives try to claim that it is “science” and insist that it is thus taught is the moment that they have crossed the line.

We’ve been there and done that one, Scott. Evolution doesn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics in any way. Try again.

From source: http://www.refcm.org/RICDiscussions/Science-Scripture/evolution.htm

For many years this (evolution) was the accepted view. It is still the view put forward in popular literature, the media and school text-books.

But in “scientific circles” it has become an embarrassment. It contradicts the best established law in the whole of science. The Law in question is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In language easily understood this law guarantees that any physical system subject only to natural processes follows a downward path to ever lower levels of energy, it becomes more disorganized - it suffers decay.

For many years supporters of the theory attempted to overlook the contradiction between evolution’s requirement (self transformation to ever higher levels of organization), and the Second Law’s exactly opposite requirement, by claiming that the Second Law applies only to “closed systems” in which no energy enters from outside. Few now try to support this discredited position, (see, for example, the Mystery of Life) and changes in the definition of evolution itself have been brought in to address the problem.

Another difficulty for the theory has come from microbiology. As scientists have learned how to examine life in ever greater detail, Darwin’s picture of organisms consisting of a few simple chemicals has given way to one of mind-boggling complexity even in the most humble of creatures. The lowly E coli bacterium possesses not only miniature electric motors of outstanding efficiency, but also the apparatus to build, repair, maintain and operate them - as well as the electricity-generating system to power them.

As it has become possible to calculate the probabilities of evolution’s mechanisms producing evolution’s supposed results, ever growing numbers of scientists have become convinced that there are problems which the theory is unable to cope with. Many are now seriously considering intelligent design as an alternative.

...

The “scientific” press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein. Any paper questioning orthodoxy, or submitted by a scientist known to be skeptical of orthodoxy, is simply denied publication. Any scientist questioning the orthodoxy is ostracized and outcast. Scientists are then able to set up a vicious circle to exclude debate. Such questions could only be seriously considered if they were discussed in the reputable journals. Any attempt to bring such discussion to the journals is prevented by editorial policy. The situation was brought into the spotlight in the chapter “The Scientific Mafia” in “Velikovski Reconsidered”. A recent example can be seen in Persecution of Richard Sternberg.

Wow, Scott… your comment is so fabulously comprehensive.  In just six paragraphs I think you recycled most of the best-known bullshit canards of creationism or it’s hidey-cousin, ‘Intelligent Design’.  Good job.

But in “scientific circles� it has become an embarrassment.

True. “Scientific circles” being the Discovery Institute, as opposed to real practicing scientists.

The “scientific� press is a tightly controlled unit which does not allow any neutral discussion of evolution, the time scale or Einstein.

True. While peer-reviewed journals that cater to real science will publish anything that meets the standards to which all submitters are held, the “scientific” press, i.e. religious publications, cannot touch anything that contradicts dogma.

Well allright let’s say for a moment I agree with intelligent design for arguments sake, therefore I agree there is a creator again for arguments sake. When/if we find this creator, we should apply the intelligent design theory in relation to this ‘irreducibly complex’ being ie the creator, and start looking for his creator then right?

Hmm are we starting to see a problem with this idea yet? If you are going to insist that every complex being/organism etc had to have a creator, then you are going to either be chasing down an endless path looking for the creator of the creator of the creator. Or you are not really supporting the intelligent design theory at all, but are just using it to support some idiotic notions from a nonsensical book. ( the bible )

intelligent design as an alternative.

And what does it look like? Can you show me one piece please?

Any process will decay if you don’t continue to fuel it. My 8 years old knows that. Ok go block the sun and you are correct.