[Nebullis]

If macroevolution is true, then it doesn't need to be "defended" by closing it off to questions or challenges. Indeed, I was taught that this is the very means by which scientific knowledge advances.

Indeed, that is correct. Such challenges are mounted and welcomed. I suspect that you understand that IDism is not a challenge to macroevolution. Instead, it is a challenge to the nature of science. Macroevolution is simply the rallying point, the reason for questioning science.

[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 APE age

[PatrickHenry]

Probably some duplication here, but if I didn't get an earlier bump about this thread, I assume others among the regulars didn't get one either.

So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 19].

[betty boop]

IDism is not a challenge to macroevolution. Instead, it is a challenge to the nature of science.

This may be so, Nebullis. Yet the point that seems obvious to me, however, is that there is no possible way for both macroevolution and "IDism" to be true. Conceptually, it's a case of either species arise entirely by means of spontanteous, random generation; or that species have a given nature that makes them what they are -- at least in their essentials, which are subject to natural modification over time. In that sense, clearly "IDism" is a challenge to macroevolution.