"When I said "data" I was referring to what is observeable in the world - life forms, fossils, DNA, etc. All the same things evolutionary proponents use to state their case. I draw different conclusions from the same observable data.
BTW - Would you please stop tying me to ID proponents. Most of those folks would not accept a creationist. Creationists and ID folks are two separate groups."
If you draw different conclusions that the Theory of Evolution from scientific data, you are plainly wrong.
ID and creationists are the same. They use the Bible against science. They both use ridiculous interpretations to pretend that biology cares about creation-it doesn't.
Until you can come up with a coherent systematic explanation (theory) for the data we have, you don't have a legitimate argument. Good luck on that, because science has not been able to falsify the Theory in over 150 years. But I am sure your "observations" and "conclusions" are far more valid than the all the scientists who have worked to validate the theory and show that evolution is a fact.
"ID and creationists are the same. They use the Bible against science"
That is a logical fallacy. Not all ID proponents accept the Bible. The "athiest" mentioned in this article does not accept the Bible; he is a deist.
As I understand the ID concept (and honestly I really haven't read any of their writings), it is a rather vague position that says things as they exist(life) could not have evolved/occurred without a designer involved. Someone who holds to theistic evolution could also be called an ID proponent. By default a creationist could be consider an ID proponent also. However, not all ID proponents are creationists or theistic evolutionists.
Do you have a clue as to what ID is? Have you read any of the literature?