[Roots]

Evolution is predicated on an hypothesis that change occurs from less complicated to more complicated.

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase. The problem with your view is that it is limited to half of the system, earth. If the simple leads to the complex, then something else must become more random, and so it does with the highly exergonic reactions of the sun, which transmits this energy to earth. The total system includes the sun, and the total system is that of increasing disorder.

It is through this increasing disorder that one part if the system, the earth, is allowed to even express forms of increasing order - allowing "random change" in the first place. It is survival of the fittest that dictates what stays and what goes during these random "ups and downs" of orderness. This random change occurs all the time and organisms, through self-interest, have evolved extensive systems to counter entropy and continue their own organization at the expense of another. On a smaller scale, biochemically, we breakdown other molecules to ensure ours remain intact, now and in future generations.

ID is an illegitimate excuse to explain the undiscovered (which, in this case, already can be answered); your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks. Scientists don't want your religious "fillers", we'll discover it eventually if it hasn't been explained already.

[Louis Foxwell]

In actuality, entropy, or disorderedness, must always increase.

You use the sun as an illustration of increasing entropy. The sun's breakdown, however, is in the direction of another generation of suns. These increase the periodic table thus increase order and complexity. Our disagreement is a difference of perspective. A sort of chicken and the egg discussion. Where you see, if I understand you correctly, a balance I see an increase of orderliness. Stars may explode and energy dissipate but order follows these events.

...your greatest folly in supporting ID is assuming the undiscovered is indeterminable and running to your "god" to fill in the blanks.

This seems to get at the heart of the dyspepsia about ID.

You choose to start with the premise that God is irrelevent to science. My position is that God as creator and sustainer of the universe can not possibly be irrelevent.

If you are correct the universe is a-theistic, without God. That is the essential premise of anti-ID crowd. You choose to limit God to a personal spiritual experience. I experience Him as essential to the structure of reality.

The scientific method is a helpful tool for understanding the universe. 'Like you, I choose to use that tool to discern more of the nature of reality. Thus far it has led me toward a confirmation that intelligence directs the course of the universe. If it leads you in the opposite direction we can have a conversation.

Do not delude yourself into believing that your dismissive attitude toward ID will rid you of the trouble of grappling with its claims. It will not.