Then you're not even paying attention to my posts, since that's been all I've talked about since I first posted on this thread.
Evolution does not address the origin of life.
Technically correct, but political baloney. The fact is that the supposed origin of life--in particular, the rather amusing myth about the primordial soup--is taught as part of evolution in current high school textbooks. The fact is further that evolutionists of a non-theistic bent believe and have promoted natural abiogenesis as part and parcel of evolution. Many of the evos here on FR have done the same. You only started making a distinction when you started getting killed in origin of life debates, as I also addressed up-thread.
Further, if evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why do the evolutionists constantly paint the theory as being at odds with ID? ID does not discount a certain amount of evolution--it is concerned primarily with abiogenesis and with the development of certain organ structures that do not appear to be able to be constructed piecemail while still being useful to the organism.
Richard Dawkins is quite honest about what he thinks evolution is about:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.Obviously, Dawkins expects to find in Darwinist Evolution an origin for life that does not include God, and he makes no distinction between Darwinist Evolution and the question of abiogenesis. Ergo, once again, those on the evolutionist side are being disingenuous, trying to have their cake and eat it too.
--The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6
ID says there is no evolution, only creation. . . In fact, ID, as I understand it, says that animals do not and did not evolve. It says that all animals were created by God with absolutley no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now.
You are either too uninformed to have this conversation with, or are being deceitful. What you are describing is Genesis-based Creationism, not ID. ID posits only that abiogenesis and perhaps the advent of certain organ structures requires a Designer; many IDers believe that after the first life forms or perhaps after the Cambrian explosion that natural evolution took over from there.
The two theories are actually entirely compatible and complimentary, dealing with the origins of life and the development of life respectively. Mind you, I'm still not an evolutionist as you would define it, but I don't ask that Genesis be taught in a science class either.
What I do require is that evolutionists be utterly transparent and honest about what they can prove and what they cannot if they're going to use my money to teach their current, admittedly prevailing scientific theory in the classroom instead of teaching known hoaxes or even unproven suppositions as proven fact. That means no drawings from Haeckel, no peppered-moth photos, no "missing links" invented from the discovery of a tooth that turned out to be from a pig, and no glossing over the problem of abiogenesis by telling the kids a nice myth about the primordial soup and a bolt of lightning.
Fairy tales about bolts of lightning creating life belong in the literature class under the heading of Mary Shelley, not in the science class.
Science shouldn't be guided by politics. That's why ID isn't science.
Do you believe in Biblical Creation?
Well, there it is.
ID has nothing to do with Genesis-based Creationism.
Why We Care About Darwin Wars:
Darwinists say the evolutionary mechanism must be purely material. ID theorists find evidence in nature of an intelligent purpose shaping life's history. Which view we convey to our children may affect their adult lives.The scientific impact: Consider our country's role as the leading exporter of scientific ideas. Modern science from its start has been fueled by religious wonder. In his new book, "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success," sociologist Rodney Stark points out that real science arose only once. That was in Europe at the hands of devoutly Christian scholars: "medieval scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian 12th-century invention, the university."
Unlike the ancient Greeks who believed the universe had no beginning and thus no designer, Christians and Jews read the opening chapters of Genesis as an affirmation that nature is God's handiwork. To understand Him, it helps to understand His creation. Writes Stark, "Newton, Kepler and Galileo regarded the creation itself as a book that was to be read and comprehended."
In erasing God's role from the history of biological existence, Darwinism erases a primary motivation to pursue scientific discovery.