[CalConservative]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents and their scientific credentials are impeccable, as is their work. This complete resistance to ID by the Darwinists stifles, rather than promotes, scientific inquiry.

The design paradigm is both powerful and compelling to the point that leading evolutionists have felt it necessary to assert that the "appearance" of design does not necessarily imply design. Yet it is hard to ignore the incredible design element of many living organisms, even down to the gene level.

I think it is important to note that scientists who are in the ID camp are not the fringe element or religious crackpots that Darwinists make them out to be. As a matter of fact, many of the attacks I have seen on ID I have seen by Darwinists tend to be personal attacks that attempt to disparage the person's credibility rather than their position, in an attempt to marginalize the person and thus their work. Some of these attacks tend to be quite vicious at times to the point where being an ID proponent can be a career limiting move. Just ask William Dembski or Stephen Meyer.

[f.Christian]

Trying to orbit science around darwin...

is like trying to put the sun in orbit around the moon/sand---DUST

HACK/whack-WARDS!

Darwin isn't relevant to anything in the universe---reality!

[Physicist]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents

And I know a number of scientists who are Christians, but that doesn't make Christianity a science, either.

All I've seen from ID'ers is the broad claim that "designyness" can be quantified. I've never seen them quantify it or test it.

[Bonaparte]

Excellent post, CC. The smell of fear is all over the AAAS. ID is rigorously scientific and they know it. In fact, it's far more scientific than neo-Darwinism in any of its many incarnations.

[Junior]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents and their scientific credentials are impeccable, as is their work.

Odds are, these scientists are not biologists -- otherwise they would publish research supporting their ID views in peer-reviewed journals. I've noticed that a lot of real scientists that support ID are actually folks in non-biological disciplines, or in many cases scientists in name only.

[Right Wing Professor]

I know a number of scientists who are ID proponents and their scientific credentials are impeccable, as is their work.

Names?

I think it is important to note that scientists who are in the ID camp are not the fringe element or religious crackpots that Darwinists make them out to be.

They are certainly a fringe element.Try finding papers on ID in the regular scientific literature.

Some of these attacks tend to be quite vicious at times to the point where being an ID proponent can be a career limiting move. Just ask William Dembski or Stephen Meyer.

Dembski's scientific career was rather unspectacular anyway, and it had sputtered to a halt long before his slight notoreity as a creationist crackpot. I don't even know who Stephen Meyer is.

[Gargantua]

Truth be told, it is the Darwinists who accept on faith alone the unsupported suppositions of Evolution, when all evidence points to Intelligent Design... right down to the way that everything found in the Natural World eventually relies upon every other thing for its own function.

Random Selection (if it were true) would have eventually resulted in the evolution of random, un-connected forms, yet none exist.

As the assumptions relied upon in the Theory of Evolution are dealt one scientific blow after another, those who understand what a stumbling block our self-important "intelligence" can become continue to live in, and appreciate, an entire world which was perfectly designed by God, the Creator who endowed us all with Inalienable Rights.

For any puffed-up poppinjay to claim that unsupported belief systems such as Evolution should be taught in place of Creation is the result of way too many decades of liberal secular academia left unchecked.

[gore3000]

The design paradigm is both powerful and compelling to the point that leading evolutionists have felt it necessary to assert that the "appearance" of design does not necessarily imply design. Yet it is hard to ignore the incredible design element of many living organisms, even down to the gene level.

The design paradigm is so strong that evolutionists are (AGAIN) redefining evolution to account for the strong evidence of design in biological systems. They are starting to use such design words as 'algorithms', 'biological pathways', and even going so far as to mention 'directed evolution'. Of course this is ludicrous since evolution has always been claimed to be random and undirected. Further, it is totally ludicrous to claim that matter is intelligent.

What they are doing is they are trying to adopt intelligent design on the sly and calling it evolution. They know there is no other way for their theory to survive in the face of the scientific discoveries of the last 150 years.