[JCEccles]

I don't pay much attention to these threads because invariably the posts disclose that the supporters of Darwinian theory have not undertaken even the most superficial impartial study of ID theory. It's hard to hear the calm voice of reason amid the deafening noise of ten thousand knees jerking.

This thread will be no different.

[curiosity]

I don't pay much attention to these threads because invariably the posts disclose that the supporters of Darwinian theory have not undertaken even the most superficial impartial study of ID theory.

I've read many articles by Behe and Dembski. I think I know what it's all about. It's not that complicated. Let me state ID "theory" as I understand it, and you tell me where I'm wrong. Okay?

Some features of life are complex and have many parts, and all those parts are necessary for them to function. If you take away one part, it ceases to function. IDers argue that such a system cannot have evolved in a Darwinian manner, because Darwinian evolution requires the addition of one part at a time, which is impossible for a system that needs all parts to function. Hence such systems must have been designed, since that is the only way in which we, as humans observe such systems to have been formed.

Now there is a lot of poor logic in the above, but it is the ID argument as I see it. Do I have it right?

[trashcanbred]

...supporters of Darwinian theory have not undertaken even the most superficial impartial study of ID theory

I have seen web sites that push ID and when I look at their their logic and reasoning, I dismiss them (mostly because it is the old "life is too complex to have been random" reason). Now maybe I went to the wrong sites so to be fair to you and believers of ID, could you please point out some sites you think would help me and others better understand the ID theory?

[fanfan]

It's hard to hear the calm voice of reason amid the deafening noise of ten thousand knees jerking.

LOL!