I really don't think that would be appropriate since there is no basis for ID that rests on anything like hard science. Since there is no answer to the "Who designed the designer" question and there never will be it is a scientific dead end. Darwinism may be an incomplete theory but it is the best we have. After all, a lot can happen in 10-15 billion years. Or even 2 to 3.
We may never know who designed the designer, but the focus on information theory may change your mind about the hard science aspects one day, and how can we ever know if every scientist who approaches the subject is crushed?
Before you judge, see the movie. They aren’t pushing for anything but a chance to be heard. Their main concern is that freedom, your freedoms are being compromised. Truth is not a one way street. When intolerant orthodoxy becomes truth, we all lose.
Oh, and one of the anti-intelligent design heroes is on film in this movie explaining his own version of the “origin of the species”. According to him, humanity may well be the intelligent design of aliens? It may be truth but then again it may not be. Why is that any more plausible than the existence of God?
As a trained biologist, I have never seen anything that prevents me from believing in both evolution and intelligent design. All I ask is that you do not equate simple creationism with intelligent design.
Well, academic freedom often IS all about atheist liberals running around in circles trying to squash debate.
Kind of like Michael Newdow.
Kind of like all liberalism.
I beg your pardon, but many aspects of politically correct macroevolution ideas are not based on scientific fact any more than ID is. For example, the claim by evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over billions of years has never been substantiated by the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments. This is for the simple reason that proper experimentation that would conclusively verify such claims would likewise take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility.
Also, experiments that have attempted to simulate billions of years of evolution tended to show that mutations were harmful.
The bottom line is that evolution "scientists" long ago faced the fact that they could not substantiate their claims by proper experimentation. So they resorted to putting on their lawyers hats and attacked Christianity by selling their inconclusive evolution evidence to the "jury," that's people like you and me. This actually worked in their favor because most people evidently don't understand the importance of scientific method experimentation in verifying scientific facts.