[MissAmericanPie]

There is at least at much for ID as Evolution, neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position, when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There is at least at much for ID as Evolution..."

Nope, ID has nothing. It makes not one testable claim.

"neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position,..."

Because science NEVER works with proof, but it does work with evidence. There is none for a ID. ID looks for those areas where we have not yet found an answer and says *God did it!*. It offers not a scintilla of evidence for what this alleged designer is, does, how he does it, nor does it provide any way for answering these questions.

"when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?"

The only arguments are coming from outside science, from the realm of theology and philosophy.

[Dimensio]

There is at least at much for ID as Evolution,

Please provide references to evidence for ID.

neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position

Nothing in science is "proved". This, however, does not mean that science cannot take a position based upon claims that are well supported by evidence.

when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?

There is no argument within the scientific community. The debate is entirely non-scientific.

[b_sharp]

"There is at least at much for ID as Evolution, neither can be proved is my point so why should science take a position, when the arguments are flying inside the scientific community on the meaing of the evidence?"

You really haven't compared the evidence have you?

So far, the main source for ID research, the Discovery Institute, has not produced any research. All they have done is claimed that complexity such as we see in the genome of any given organism is highly complex, too complex to be the product of random events. They then go on to define complexity as an exclusive product of intelligence (unconvincingly I might add) so that genomic complexity must be the result of an intelligence. In effect what they have done is to perform 'research by definition' where their definition is both a premise and the conclusion.

Science is not in the business of proving their theories but in accumulating and analyzing data which is then tested within the bounds of applicable theories. Because there may in the future be improvements in testing technology, or new evidence may require modification to current conclusions, every conclusion in science is viewed as a 'fluid' level of confidence.

Aside from the scientists belonging to one creationist faction or another, there is really very little contention within the science community about the existence of evolution. There is little argument about the existence of evolutionary mechanisms, what is in depute is the relative influence each mechanism has on the totality of evolution. Some believe selection is of prime import, others believe drift has more of an impact. Some accept that natural selection is sufficient and necessary for 'macro-evolution' (the scientific definition, not the creationist definition), others claim selection alone is not enough.

The main point is that even those arguing the mechanisms accept the 'variation of allele frequencies within a population due to differential reproductive rates', 'descent with modification' and common descent.