[kimosabe31]

Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)

Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it. Move over and quite blocking the aisle. Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism. Are you (darwinist groupies)so insecure in your beliefs that you feel threatened by competing views?

[Ichneumon]

[Will someone please show me any type of physical evidence that ID is correct. (Evidence that Natural Selection is incorrect does not explicitly support ID. Just because "A" is wrong does not mean "B" is correct.)]

Ogre, no one is asking you darwinists to believe anything. All the ID folks are asking is for "equal time". Get it.

You'll get "equal time" when you have "equal evidence". Get *THAT*?

Move over and quite blocking the aisle.

Stop whining that you have nothing to actually present.

Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism.

ROFL!!!!!!

[GreenOgre]

Intelligent Design has every bit as much or more credibility than has darwinism. Are you (darwinist groupies)so insecure in your beliefs that you feel threatened by competing views?

In the scientific world credibility is gained through evidence, experimentation, and peer review. Please state your evidence, experimentation, and/or peer review of the previous ID "science". On it's own merits, ID has no credibility as a scientific theory whatsoever. I'm not "blocking the aisle". I'm not defensive or paranoid about Natural Selection. I'm merely asking, "Why you demand to bring the supernatural into a science classroom?"

BTW: I'm going to start a lawsuit to throw out the "Theory of Gravity" and substitute it with the "Angels push things down to keep it from drifting up into heaven theory". Should that get as much space in the "aisle" as ID?