Not 'new', maybe. However, our understanding of the microscopic world has improved greatly since the years of Darwin. As ImaGraftedBranch pointed out, people back then knew NOTHING about the inner workings of a cell (the energy efficiency of the cell, for instance, is much greater than that of a car, a product of human design).
Darwin openly admitted that his theory of evolution seemed 'foolhardy' when he used the human eye as an example: an extremely complex optical device. He would probably call his own theory (which many people seem to have forgotten: evolution is a THEORY) utter foolishness if he saw how infinitely more complex DNA was.
Bingo! ID doesn't go anywhere as 'science.' It is just trying to sneak religion past the Constitution and into the classroom Technically, seeing as how evolution (and I'm talking about macro-evolution; not micro-evolution, which has and IS proven to occur, such as the breeding of a pitbull and a Doberman Pinscher to form a Rottweiler) is a theory (not fact), one could say it has the same amount of validity as ID. Especially considering that, as evolution purportedly takes place over many, many, many years, it can't be analyzed (and thus it can't be proven). The theory of evolution has had so many different parts thrown into it that it's split off into several different demoninations of the theory (such as neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibrium) in order to try and explain how such an incredibly complex human body could have happened by 'chance'. However, in doing so, the evolutionists have only sowed discord among themselves.
The Theory (can't say that enough) of Evolution would have to show something extraordinary if a species (like a fish) 'evolves' into a dinosaur, then into a bird. Organisms have set limit in their genetic code as to how far they can change. For macro-evolution to exist, new genes and alleles would have to be added to the creature's genetic code. Of course, that is clearly impossible (very little data supporting this hypothesis, and a lot of data contradicting it).
Let me put a simpler way; saying that the human body got to where it was today by chance is akin to breaking an airplane apart, putting the parts into a box, shaking the box, and hoping the airplane will come back together.
Another argument for evolution would be the fossil record (ie the evolution of the horse, from Eohippus to Equus). Problem is, bones for these 'devolved' horses are scattered across several different continents, not all together in one specific region of the world. Also, fossils of Eohippus have been found as close to the earth's surface as Equus fossils. This goes against the idea of the geological column, where the lower you go, the simpler the organisms' fossils are.
One last thing; did you know that the cyctochrome C sequences (cytochrome C is a protein involved in cellular metabolism, FYI, and is present in most organisms) in bacterium are more closely related to us than those of a Rhesus monkey (bacterium: 65%; Rhesus monkey: 1%)?
Ta ta.
Lie. These are the amino acid sequences for cytochrome c, taken from the National Center for Bioinformatics database. Macaca mulatta is the rhesus monkey.
Homo sapiens: 1 mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk igqapgysyt Macaca mulatta: 1 -gdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt Homo sapiens: 51 aanknkgiiw g-edtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne Macaca mulatta: 51 aanknkgitw gvedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katneDo those look 1% related to you?
The Theory (can't say that enough) of Evolution
Ah, that old lie raises its head again. It never fails - every single creationist argument must include a misrepresentation about the meaning of the word "theory." They think the application of word somehow weakens evolution's case; it only strengthens it.
Rhesus monkeys, eh? Cherry-picking data is better than quote mining, I guess. But that doesn't say anything about evolution. If you could find such a disparity between humans and apes, then maybe you'd have a point. You do understand that there's a difference between monkeys and apes, don't you?
And while we're on interesting facts, did you know that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than mice and rats?
For macro-evolution to exist, new genes and alleles would have to be added to the creature's genetic code. Of course, that is clearly impossible
I don't know if you are a Biblical literalist or not, but you realize that you have just destroyed the position of Biblical literalism if your above statement is indeed true. After all, we know that there are many genes for which there are more than four possible alleles. However, if your statement is true, then we cannot all be descended from the same two individuals (Adam and Eve) since Adam and Eve could only have passed at most four alleles for each gene on to their offspring. (Adam could have had alleles A and B, Eve had C and D, any allele E would then be impossible.) Of course, since your statement is completely untrue, there's no threat to either Biblical literalism or evolution in it.
This is one of the greatest misconceptions argued by anti-evolutionary advocates.
A more accurate way to word your parenthetical statement would be: (a wealth of data supporting this hypothesis, none contradicting it)
Other misconceptions in your response:
Inner workings of a cell are too complex to have evolved
The eye is too complex to have evolved
Darwin wrote that the eye was too complex to have evolved
Evolution cannot be proven because it cannot be directly observed
Scientists are in discord over evolution
The order of life cannot arise from the disorder of separate parts
Horse fossils do not show evolution
Did I miss any?