"I guess we should cut off their funding becasue ID has the answer and they don't need to do that research."
I'm betting there should have been a /sarc tag there. ;)
Personally I believe in some sort of God-inspired evoloution. It might be as simple as Him creating the "spark of life" or as complex and pre-planned Intelligent Design. I don't believe that God wiggled his nose and all of a sudden the earth was full of all the plants and animals we know today. I do believe some sort of creation AND evoloution had to take place and would like to explore both possibilites further as they relate to all life, not just human. Religion, sociology, and philosophy are all great but they do not deal with animal and plant origins (outside Genesis), other life forms that share this earth with us and came from somewhere.
My point about the Big Bang was not about it as it related to evoloution. It was about theories with little or no basis in fact being accepted and taught as science while others, which happen to allude to a higher power, are not taught in science.
There is no issue with believing ID and accepting evolution. The big problem is masquerading a theological and/or philosophical arguement into a scientific one.
Scientific theories, like the Big Bang, have root in observable facts. There is a lot of purely (at this point) theoretical research done in physics and cosmology, but that doesn't invalidate the work. One of the challenges is coming up with methods to test these very advanced theories.THe problem is that there are no scientific theories that allude to a higher power. Remember, a scientific theory is constructed from factual observations. There are no factual observations that can be used to construct a 'higher power' theory. There is no way to prove a higher power exists, let alone is responsible for the structure and properties of our universe. It would be like me saying I saw Humpty Dumty yesterday and I put him back together. How can you prove me wrong? You can't. For such a claim, the burden of proof should be to demonstrate that I did. Same thing with ID. It postulates a designer without any way to disprove it. The burden of proof needs to be on the IDers to show the existence of this creator is it is to be accepted as science. By extending the logic of including ID as science, then and non-falsifiable argument must be acceptable as science. That's how the Flying Spaghetti Monster satire came into existence. No one can disprove the existence of his noodly appendages and hence has equal validity, in the schools of logic, with ID.