[linear]

I still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible. One postulates the creation of the universe, the other is a theory as to how species evolve.

[conservativebabe]

species of animals yes, but humans? Guess that's where the fork in the road starts.

[mugs99]

I still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible

They aren't. Some just miss the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debates.
.

[Kirkwood]

"I still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are i
incompatible."

It is not that they are incompatible, but that ID is not science, while evolution is. You can't prove that ID exists because you can't prove the existence of God. But you can easily show that evolution and natural selection exist using something as simple as petri dishes. For example, observing germs that become resistant to antibiotics through natural selection and evolving by passing the genes for resistance on to offspring. You can do the same with fruit flies or any other species that reproduces quickly. Whether or not you want to ascribe evolution to ID is a choice and a belief, not a scientific question that can be tested.

[Dimensio]

I still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible. One postulates the creation of the universe, the other is a theory as to how species evolve.

That's not "ID" as the "ID movement" explains it. ID is an attempt to explain "irreducably complex" structures, which are supposed anatomical features of organisms that "could not" have emerged through natural selection. The problems with it are twofold; first, it is abundantly clear from the very words of the major backers of the ID movement that it is nothing more than Biblical literalist creationism with a screen covering up the religious aspects and second, the arguments regarding alleged "irreducably complex" structures have already been shown to be flawed and without merit.

ID as a movement has nothing to do with the creation of the universe and everything to do with overthrowing accepted practices of science in favour of conjecture based upon biological ignorance.

[Rudder]

...still have yet to figure out how evolution and ID are incompatible.

The real conflict arises because ID tries to pass itself off as science, which it is not, whereas evolution theory is a scientific endeavor.

[My2Cents]

They're incompatible only in the sense that evolution is a convenient theory of the development of life which puts God out of the picture (IMHO, this is the main attraction of evolution to the evolutionists), and that ID puts God into the evolutionary process. It's not intelligent design, but the concept of an Intelligent Designer, which puts causes the Darwinists to foam.

[firebrand]

You are exactly right. It's what Gilbert Ryle would call a category mistake, like comparing oranges and fruit.

[KeepUSfree]

You hit on my pet peeve. Idiots around here think evolution has to do with the creation or the origins of life.

It's like you tell someone you are painting your house, and they tell you that that's impossible - because you can't build a house.

Never said I was "building" or "creating" anything. I'm only changing what already exists.

I sure wish the flat-earthers around here would give some thought to the concept. Evolution does not negate God. It's that simple