[Salgak]

Methinks you're wrong, or more concisely, incorrect. ID posits an unprovable contention. If you can't prove it, it's not science, no matter how you spin it.

Remember: Science answers the question "how ?"

Religion (and philosohpy) concern themselves with the question "why ?"

They're not in conflict, they're just talking past each other. . .

[truthfinder9]

We detect design every day. It's not hard. It's the basis for forensics and arcaeology. That's what ID's about: the ability to detect design.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

Remember: Science answers the question "how ?"

Religion (and philosohpy) concern themselves with the question "why ?"

So, the Genesis account answers the question of why? Seems to me that it's screaming "This is how it happened." I could understand if Genesis merely said "God created the earth", but it goes into detail. Therefore, any other attempt to explain how that doesn't agree with it by necessity contradicts it. Don't get me wrong, I don't think sciencve and religion contradict at all. I see evolution as being in the same vein as radical environmentalism and the flat-earthers: laughable, ridiculous, and definitely not science.

[onja]

Science involves theories. Theories aren't proven. Neither evolution or ID is proven or likely will be. I encourage evolution being taught in schools. It just doesn't make sense to completely ignore the gaps and problems with it and then completely ignore all the evidences of the theory of ID. How can it hurt the kids to teach them about controversy? If they know both sides they'll be able to look at it more objectively. Not just being taught one side and having no idea of the other side.

[GregoryFul]

Suppose a researcher finds that "junk" DNA encodes for expression of processes that can construct cognates of our cells' structures (carbon based) in silicon rich environments? That would be pretty exciting, don't you think? Wouldn't you think that would constitute proof that DNA was designed?