[Quark2005]

What do you do with the natural clocks issue? River delta sedimentation? The expectation by NASA as to the amount of lunar dust? The long intimated time of millions of years it took for the Grand Canyon to be carved, only for Mt St Helens to do similar stuff in less than an hour?

Here we go. Why do creationists keep using the same irrelevant arguments over and over and over again?

The fact that you think the "moon dust argument" or "river delta sedimentation" are legitimate arguments shows that you really need some more science literacy before you can even argue competently about this stuff. I guarantee any geologist worth their degree would either be shaking their head or laughing out loud at these assertions. (And I'm not going to waste my time debunking them one by one; that work has already been done; do some homework and find out why for yourself. It's easier to tell a lie than to research it and prove it wrong; I'm not going to do that for you.)

My question still stands, that no creationist I've known ever would give a straight answer to - if we abandon peer review by the mainstream scientific community as a litmus test for what is considered good science, what general standard should we use for determining what science should be taught?

ID is very comparable to psychic power theory, UFOlogy and astrology in that none of them have been accepted by any significant part of the scientific community. There is no reason to teach a theory of biology that has been accepted by less than 1% of the biological community and has no publications in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. And young-earth theory, which you seem to be confusing with ID, has even less scientific credibility and is outright laughable.

If you're unwilling to educate yourself properly about science, you should leave it to the professionals.

[GoLightly]

ID can also be seen as comparable to forensic science, where there is probability there is a perp whodunit.

Early science assumed a "life force", but they misunderstood it & the study of it got pushed out to the fringes. They didn't have the tools to see the critters bringing life into to the dead things exhibiting "spontaneous generation".

The observation remains, life hands life off to other life & it does it in many different environments, though it has not been observed in any of the extremes where building blocks to life are being searched to discover the origin of life. How can all simple life on earth accomplish something that seems to require extremes elsewhere?

You want proof against ID, prove there is no "life force". Physics accepts forces by what they do & they put enegy into discovering their properties. Biology does the opposite & assumes against any such force, despite the evidence, cuz it's a lot more fun coming up with different recipes for the soup.