[Aric2000]

Whew, you got me confused with that post, BIG time.

So which is it that you believe, or are you just playing devils advocate?

Because the first part has been explained beyond ad nauseum, and the 2nd part seemed like an attack on someone that believes the first part.

[plusone]

I don't believe either side, I think both are in error. Evolution claims to be scientific, yet cannot account for how NS can create partially developed, non-functioning appendages which confer no advantage to the holder. How can a 1% eye survive as an advantage to be passed on to the offspring? My second point is that the ID group would use such an argument to defend their belief in God, when it does no such thing.