[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.

[Cicero]

Evolution really can't be "quantified" either. It's basically a circular argument. "Survival of the fittest" is simply a tautology, which defines "fittest" as that which survives. Nor, after a century of trying, has anyone ever demonstrated that evolution ever occurs, other than intraspecies evolution, which no one questions.

ID and general evolution are both hypotheses, but if you actually look at the literature, the former is much likelier than the latter.

[f.Christian]

Creation/God...REFORMATION(Judeo-Christianity)---secular-govt.-humanism/SCIENCE---CIVILIZATION!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH(limited NON-intrusive PC Govt/religion---schools)!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY(pc/liberal/govt-religion/rhetoric)...

Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/ZOMBIE/BRAVE-NWO1984 LIBERAL NEO-Soviet Darwin/ACLU America---the post-modern age

[CalConservative]

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.

Maybe you aren't talking to the right people. I just had dinner last month with a research microbiologist from a relatively large university and he was telling me how he uses design concepts in a predictive capacity for his research work on bacteria. Now I'm a geologist, not a biologist, so some of the in-depth discussion was hard for me to follow, but the gist of it was that he is able to use reverse engineering as you would with any machine that is designed or like software for that matter, and making discoveries that he is able to publish on. Furthermore, he also discussed the design parameters of various bacteria functions and why many of these functions cannot operate without the presence of many (and in the case of some components, up to 50) specialized genes. If any of these genes are missing, that component cannot exist or function. His work has led him to believe that it is impossible to simulaneously evolve 50 specialized genes to give the bacteria this component and there are no intermediate functionalities that could use only some of the genes while the others "evolve' to produce the final function. What is left? Weak arguments for "puncuated equilibrium?"

There is more fascinating stuff (it was a long evening), but I have to admit that I was certainly swayed by the evidence. I would stress that this is not just making claims about design, but actually using an ID approach to making research discoveries.

[Heartlander]

I you have time I would appreciate your opinion:
The CTMU and Intelligent Design

[LiteKeeper]

You obviously have not been reading the vast amount of literature that the ID'ers have published...or your head is in the sand.

Sorry for the bluntness, but anti-ID'ers are just not paying attention. The Darwinian Ark is full of holes, and sinking fast.

[Mr. K]

By the same token Evolution has never been quantified or tested, has it?

I like the idea of ID- but some things are inherently un-provable.

Can you 'prove' a car is the product of Intelligent Design? Probably- you can show that a man drew up designs and fashioned parts..etc.

But can you ever 'prove' God created the uyniverse? Well unlees whe can point to him and see his blueprints, I dont think we can.

[foghornleghorn]

Nor can you quantify or "test" Darwinism, in the sense that you can gain conclusive physical "proof" of its accuracy. We are dealing with inductive logic here.