Replies

ID is a theory that the universe is not just a random happening - that it was created by a power we don't understand and can't explain completely.

What observations led to the formation of this theory, and what evidence has elevated it to the status of theory? What tests can be done on this theory, and what hypothetical observation would falsify this theory.

But I'm sure you know what ID is.

Not really, because the definition changes depending on the ID supporter that I ask.

And it should be taught as a theory like evolution is.

Only if my previous questions have answers.

But you know what, it really doesn't matter because those of us who believe in creation will never accept many facets of evolution any more than evolutionists will accept creation.

The difference is that those who accept evolution have reason and facts on their side, and the diehard creationists have nothing but dogma, willful ignorance and, in many cases, outright dishonesty.

I'm sure you're aware that the majority of Americans believe in creation so it looks like all these years of making sure students are taught evolution have been in large part a waste of everyone's time.

45% is a "majority"? The Democrats would love that kind of math.

ID is a theory that the universe is not just a random happening - that it was created by a power we don't understand and can't explain completely.

ID is a political movement that is attempting steal the credibility of science in their effort to claim scientific "proof" of the existence of God.

Since they have no positive evidence in their favor, their method is to cast questions on the validity of evolution, while piosly claiming that "truth" is their only agenda. While ignoring the fact that litterally anything can be questioned to the point of apparent "doubt".

The last poll I saw was over 65% but since I don't remember where, I'll defer to your numbers. Scientists disagree on many things, which I'm sure you know, but do they call each other ignorant? Probably. Most scientists seem to be quite rigid. The thing about the evolution/creationism debate is that we won't know for sure until we're dead. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

...the definition changes depending on the ID supporter that I ask.

In the talk I attended, by the Grand Designer Accolyte, Behe, the definition changed through the talk. It was like looking at a cloud and seeing pictures of a horse and duck.

I am sure that since all evolutionists are atheists, mlc is considering the ~35% of people who believe that God created all the different species of life using the process of evolution to be creationists. Oh wait, there really ARE people who believe in God and are pro-evolution! GASP!!!
</sarcasm off>