[Coyoteman]

Apparently you also misunderstood my post...I was not defending a 10k year old earth only pointing out the difference between creationism and ID. I posted earlier that these two always get lumped together so as to easily dismiss ID when in fact they are not the same theory. It seems to be a compulsion on the part of the anti ID crowd to do this. I think that it is because ID makes a much more compelling case and this creates discomfort for naturalists.

Sorry if I misunderstood the 10k bit. Archaeology and radiocarbon dating are two of my major studies, so I am somewhat sensitive on the young earth claims.

But I have to disagree on the CS vs. ID dichotomy. I think ID was invented in the late 1980s shortly after the CS in schools decision by the Supreme Court. I think it was designed, as the "wedge" document (which is now passed off as a fund-raising piece) claims, to get creation into schools and naturalism out.

Sorry if you don't agree, but that is where the evidence seems to lead. First, ID is not being pushed in non-Christian countries. It is not being picked up as a "science" anywhere else either. If there was any science there, any way of generating testable predictions or any explanatory power, it would be picked up elsewhere. Finally, the correspondence between supporters of ID and apparent religious belief on these threads is extremely high, nearing 100%. On these threads, at least, many ID proponents also throw in young earth, and bible literalism. This has led to some interesting posts!

[fizziwig]

All I am really interested in is that ID be evaluated as it is actually proposed by its supporters not as a "straw man" synopsis presented by its opponents for easy knockdown. Both sides do this i.e. ID supporters, and more so creationsists, often offer up a straw man of evolution for easy knock down, but on FR I see it more from the Darwinists.