[Jeff Gordon]

My reading and study doesn't prove out any hard core ID religiosity.

I have never heard of any atheist who "believes in" ID. We can safely say that 100% of the ID "believers" or religious in one way or another.

Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious people and atheists.

[rickdylan]

>Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious people and atheists.

I'd qualify that. Evolution is accepted by atheists and by "religious people" who who've never thought terribly hard about it.

Evolution and Christianity in particular are totally incompatible. Somebody who believes in logic can only believe in one of them.

[Axlrose]

Darwinism is a atheist construct and is NOT accepted by the faithful.

[ClearCase_guy]

We can safely say that 100% of the ID "believers" or religious in one way or another.

It almost sounds like you are arguing that ID cannot be true -- because everyone who believes in ID also follows some religion.

That might qualify as a gentle ad hominem attack on proponents of ID. The concept of ID should be addressed, not the other beliefs of it's proponents.

[ROTB]

>Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious
>people and atheists.

Indeed, only people of faith who haven’t thought about the implications of evolution, and the contradictions with Genesis would espouse and promote such a worldview.

Here’s a list I copied from a book.

*********************************

Bible: God is the creator of all things. (Genesis 1)

Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.

Bible: World created as is in six literal days. (Genesis 1)

Evolution: World evolved over billions of years.

Bible: Creation is completed. (Genesis 2:3)

Evolution: Creative processes continuing.

Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)

Evolution: Land before oceans.

Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)

Evolution: Life began in the oceans.

Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)

Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.

Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.

Bible: Fruit trees before fish. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)

Evolution: Fish before fruit trees.

Bible: All stars made on fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)

Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.

Bible: Birds and fish created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-21)

Evolution: Fish evolved hundreds of millions of years before birds.

Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31, Leviticus 11)

Evolution: Insects before birds.

Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Evolution: Reptiles before whales.

Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)

Evolution: Reptiles before birds.

Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-9)

Evolution: Sun before any light.

Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)

Evolution: Sun before any plants.

Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life all at once. (Genesis 1:20)

Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic soup.

Bible: Man’s body from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)

Evolution: Man and monkey have a common ancestor.

Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)

Evolution: Many organisms extinct before man evolved.

Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)

Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.

Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds of life (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25)

Evolution: All life is in a continual state of change.

Bible: Death caused by Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit. (Genesis 2:17)

Evolution: Death existed long before the evolution of man.

[ChessExpert]

I have never heard of any atheist who "believes in" ID.

Nor I, in this context. An atheist who denied evolution would seem to have no explanation for the life about us.

The search for extraterrestial intelligence (SETI) includes the search for signals that display intelligence, signals that are intelligently designed. That too is ID. I expect many SETI enthusiasts are atheists. If so, atheists have no problem with ID as long as the field is SETI and not biology.

To me, intelligent design should be no more controversial than natural selection. If I were to find cupid’s heart and “Bobby loves Sandy” on a sandy beach, I would infer intelligent design, and would reject the tide as an explanation. The idea that a soot filled era would favor black cats, or a snowy environment might favor white cats, seems like common sense and natural selection would be a highly plausible hypothesis.