Replies

Can you tell me the idea behind ID? I doubt it? How about Right Wing Prof?

The scientific community has unequivocally expressed their support of evolution and denounced ID/creationism as pseudoscience.

There are many within the scientific community who support ID. Many educators like to treat ID as a pariah, but I find those actually in science more open minded about the subject. Many biologists are against it -- but then again they most always don't design anything! Laugh.

Can you tell me the idea behind ID? I doubt it?

ID says: "Since at this current point in time, we do not completely understand everything, it must have been designed by an *ahem* higher power *ahem*." ID is not science, and no matter how many scientifically illiterate people say it is, does not chnage that fact. There is no huge conspiracy to keep ID out of science. There is one simple explanation why it is rejected, it's not science! Without evolution, there is no modern biology. Take away the parts of ID (which is basically nothing) that directly attack evolution, and you have NOTHING left! How can it be an alternative to evolution, when it has no data, and makes no predictions!

There are many within the scientific community who support ID

They may have personal beliefs about it, but they do not support it from a scientific basis. I can't find one major science institution that does not openly support evolution. If there was ANY debate on the subject, they would not be so assertive about it.

Many educators like to treat ID as a pariah, but I find those actually in science more open minded about the subject. Many biologists are against it -- but then again they most always don't design anything! Laugh.

Really? Can you give some examples? Somehow I doubt you know many scientists. BTW, NO scientists design anything, that's what engineers do.

ID actually is a very good trick to teach creationism. So good that the Discovery Institute wrote about it in their "wedge" document several years ago. Their goal being to corrupt science into teaching about God.

I'm only amazed that science hasn't yet fully counter attacked by going after apparent contradictions in the Bible. The Noah flood story is especially ripe for scientists to find "holes", like ID claims to have found in Evolution.

IDers are kicking at a rattle snake, and it's rattling. It just hasn't struck back yet. It's just too bad that the real victims will be the believers that will reject their faith in the process of the fight.

It's too bad about this whole mess. There are so many more constructive things that Christians could occupy themselves with than attempting to destroy science.

Can you tell me the idea behind ID? I doubt it? How about Right Wing Prof?

ID is based on the unproven and probably false conjecture that we can somehow differentiate between 'design' and the result of a natural process (stipulating that 'design' somehow evades being a natural process), simply by examining the results of the process, and without knowing how it occured. Its sole tangible evidence is the apparent observation that there are structures in biology that could not have arisen by evolution because they cannot function except as a whole, and the likelihood that they could have all come together as a whole at once is too low. Needless to say, biologists have been able to drive several large trucks through this specious argument.

There are many within the scientific community who support ID. Many educators like to treat ID as a pariah, but I find those actually in science more open minded about the subject. Many biologists are against it -- but then again they most always don't design anything! Laugh.

Depends on what you mean by 'many'. A very small minority of scientists subscribe to ID; they are in general motivated by religious conviction and not by the evidence; and the likelihood they support ID is directly proportional to their distance from and igorance of biology.