[Tramonto]

ID isn't about the designer, its about the designed. There are many irreducibly complex systems in the cell that cannot have evolved in a gradual progression that would be required by random mutation and natural selection.

As far as I know, many people have dismissed Behe’s arguments but no one has actually made any real attempt to disprove them.

If evolution is taught in a science class, it should be taught as a hypothesis and only real supporting evidence should be presented. Most texts on the subject are full of distortions and lies such as Haeckel’s Embryos and Homologies.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

ID isn't about the designer, its about the designed. There are many irreducibly complex systems in the cell that cannot have evolved in a gradual progression that would be required by random mutation and natural selection.

Have you ever heard of genetic algorithms? It's a means of solving huge problem-spaces very efficiently and effectively.

To summarize, it's an evolutionary means of solving a problem. You have a problem - you have a solution framework. Not the actual solution mind you, but a general description of what a solution could be (I need a specific electrical network, and I know it will have a series of connected R, L, and C components).

Then you seed a population of solutions with random answers. Some have more R components, some have all Cs, and so on.

Each solution is scored - how close did it come to a good answer? Then you pair the better solutions with each other, and create "child" solutions, which contain a mixture of the components of the two parents. And you add in the ability for occasional mutations (a component that neither parent had). Build the children, run again.

What you find is that you "evolve" a solution rather quickly, and can search HUGE problem spaces (like problem spaces with literally trillions of potential answers, and millions of very good answers) with just a few dozen generations.

Look it up - genetic algorithms are quite useful! And they follow a VERY evolutionary path, especially for incredibly complex and "soft" answer problem-sets. And it does it all with natural selection with occasional mutations.

See, if math and logic show a solution path is possible, and since we KNOW that life is basically a combination of DNA components (much like my RLC networks above), then there is a the logical - and scientific - jump to make from "it works with mathematics and logic, I wonder if it would work with genetics and species evolution".

So what is the logical or mathematical or scientific basis for ID?

[Caramelgal]

ID isn't about the designer, its about the designed.

No you are wrong in that ID is all about the “designer”. If one is to presume that the origin of life is “intelligently” designed by some supernatural or natural superior intelligence, then how does one not be willing to question or answer this very fundamental question on ID’s hypothesis without questioning and discussing all the possible merits of all the various creation stories and all various religious and supernatural or extraterrestrial beliefs pertaining to creation theology and mythology and giving them all equal status and credibility?

Your definition of ID would have to presume a very agnostic view of who the “creator” was. Your definition of ID would have to accept all the endless possible scenarios.

Evolutionary theory does not attempt to explain how life began but only offers an explanation of how life evolved.