[js1138]

Your argument is self-referential, since you are making an ad-hominum attack on the critics of ID without saying what the weaknesses of evolution are, or how you would know they are weakness unless mainstream scientists openly discussed them.

ID fails not because it is wrong, but because it contributes nothing to the sum of knowledge. It does no research, proposes no research, suggests no lines of possible research, uses none of the money contributed for the promotion of ID to fund research.

[Antoninus]

Your argument is self-referential, since you are making an ad-hominum attack on the critics of ID without saying what the weaknesses of evolution are, or how you would know they are weakness unless mainstream scientists openly discussed them.

Huh? Where am I making any attacks? For the record, I think that the ToE makes a very compelling case, though incomplete.

ID fails not because it is wrong, but because it contributes nothing to the sum of knowledge.

How so? If ID manages to demonstrate that certain biological tissues, organs, systems, or organisms are irreducibly complex, this would blow a major hole into the ToE which Darwin himself acknolwedged. To my mind, this would contribute a huge amount to the sum of human knowledge, even if it doesn't necessarily prove what many creationists would like it to.

Overall, I think you have things bass-ackwards. The ToE is the champ. ID is a criticism. It does not propose a full-blown alternate theory--yet. However, it will cause Darwinian evolutionists to explain away a whole host of theoretical irreducible complexities.

For the record--I've laid out my religious beliefs pretty clearly (see tagline--I'm Catholic). What are your beliefs?