The problem you will run into is that ID is neither good science nor good religion.
As science it is a failure; it was cooked up to try to replace creation "science" and it has no more real science behind it than creation "science" ever did. The few attempts to patch some science into ID (such as irreducible complexity) have failed miserably.
As religion it is the belief that dare not speak its name.
The problem you will run into is that ID is neither good science nor good religion.
***Then it gets tossed. We shall see. From the discussions on crevo threads that I’ve seen, the IDers seem to be good scientists. I myself have had people who like to defend science tell me that the science behind the historicity of Jesus’ death is unreliable. These people obviously haven’t examined the evidence, so it’s proof enough to me that they work on an agenda and their thinking is skewed.
As religion it is the belief that dare not speak its name.
***That’s great. I love it, because those of us on this other thread went round & round on the scientism religion that dare not speak its name.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2038869/posts
Thats what you say, but you have never demonstrated that to any degree other than declaring it a failure and linking into talk-orgins (Everyone’s favorite evolution propaganda site)