[tokenatheist]

What evidence exists to support ID?

[cornelis]

You?

[joebuck]

"What evidence exists to support ID?"

The Anthropic principal does a pretty good job.

[Recovering_Democrat]

See post 5.

If you're really interested, it takes some time to listen and see. If you're not really interested, then be like the so-called Darwin scientists in the movie: put your hands over your ears and talk loudly so you won't hear. :)

Seriously, let me see if there are some good youtube links--
Unlocking The Mystery of Life on YouTube

[Old North State]

I don't think ID contra Darwin is the point of the movie, but rather the trashing of the principle of free inquiry which lies at the heart of the scientific method. Here, as in the Global Warming debate, those on the Left don't want to conduct an argument, they want to silence their opponents with Stalinist pronouncements and state sponsored consensus.

[bray]

Your a good example of why evolution does’t exist. Why should you care what other people think?? You are basically saying think like me or else which happens to be the point. Get lost! Never mind, you already are.

Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops

[mjp]

What evidence exists to support ID?

The cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.

[philetus]

What evidence exists to support ID?”

John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin [would be blameless]; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
John 15:21-23 (in Context) John 15 (Whole Chapter)

[Elsiejay]

At bottom, the evidence I’ve seen asserted to support evolution is the fact that we exist, and the evolutionary model is the only explanation possible.

[Aquinasfan]

What evidence exists to support ID?

Imagine that you're walking through the jungle and you come to a library filled with thousands of books. Would you ascribe the existence of this library to intelligent agency or random chance? (I'm sure you can see where this is going.)

Yet when it comes to the study of human cells, which contain enough encoded information to fill a library, Darwinists ask us to ascribe the origin of this information to random chance, rather than intelligent agency.

This problem has become painfully obvious to leading Darwinists, which is why Crick (who discovered DNA) and Dawkins (a leading proponent of evolutionary theory today), ascribe the origin of life to "seeding" by aliens.

What ID is asking for is academic permission to ascribe intelligent design to phenomena that appear to have been designed by an intelligence. This commonsensical idea really isn't very radical.