I disagree with Bethal on this point. A new movement such as ID tends to view many or all of their arguments as novel, but the creationists have been using many of the same arguments for years, debating evolutionists on university campuses, and otherwise taking the fight to the enemy...and they will continue to do so until the issue is decided once and FOREVER.
Given that it's pretty well accepted that absolute proof of either proposition is unlikely to be forthcoming, what is your assesment of the likely means of resolution?
The creationists never want to have an actual debate on the evidence for evolutionary change-which is great-or the merits of their philosophy since it boils down to a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.
It's fine to point out the shortcomings in a scientific theory, but when you actually have to posit a hypothesis that doesn't rest upon any tangible empirical evidence you find yourself in a bit of sticky wicket, don't you?
The Watchmaker appeared in 1800. Several other mechanics also appeared in the early 1800s. Is that the beginning of the 'movement'?
The Intelligent Designer didn't have to design every
thing. But set the groundwork for the basics: Gravity,
Atoms, and so forth. The concept of evolution became
a starting point. But the ultimate design tool, like
the compilers above, was THE MIND.
Straightforward for me.
ID is dangerous because it is a fraud. No, I'm not talking it's argument against evolution, I'm talking about the fraud wherein it pretends to be non-religious, when in fact it is all about religious faith.
The fact that GodGunsGuts supports it is one of but many pieces of evidence that demonstrates that point.
GGG claims that evolution is "religion" (how that gives his religion a leg up on the "religion" of evolution I don't know). But there is no doubt that religious creationism begat ID, which porports to be a-religious, and is thus a fraud.