[gore3000]

That's not good enough, though. Once an idea -- a principle or theory -- is adopted by working scientists, is actively and fruitfully employeed in ongoing research,

Totally false. Science ignores evolution. All the major discoveries in biology in the last 150 years - mendellian genetics, the discovery of DNA, and the interrelatedness of the functions of the organism - support ID, not evolution. Further, no Nobel Prize has ever been given for anything which backed evolution. All the prizes have gone to discoveries that tended to disprove evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

Blue-skipping, all-purpose placemarker.
A scientific theory has to be based on evidence and a theory that cannot provide evidence is just charlatanism.
Of course he was a creationist. If he was a Christian he believed in a Creator.
There are no creationists. [but see above]
You [PatrickHenry] have been suspended several times.
The-Earth-is-old-and-Henry-Morris-is-right.
Wildly elliptical.
1⁷²⁰.
Nobel Prize for biology.
All discoveries disprove evolution.
DNA disproves evolution.
The fossil record disproves evolution.
Nobel Prize for creationism.
Genetic variation has nothing to do with evolution.
Parable of the Ant and the Elephant .

[Note to moderator: there are no personal attacks in this post.]

[Aric2000]

Keep fooling yourself with your nonsense, I find it amusing on the one hand, and kinda scary on the 2nd. Because there are probably people that actually think you are right, because you and they look at only the evidence that will agree with you and ignore the 99.9% that disagrees with you.

Poor Gore, he needs help, and quick!!

[Stultis]

All the major discoveries in biology in the last 150 years - mendellian genetics, the discovery of DNA, and the interrelatedness of the functions of the organism - support ID, not evolution. Further, no Nobel Prize has ever been given for anything which backed evolution.

Nobel prizes are given for PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, MEDICINE (or physiology), LITERATURE, and PEACE. No prize for biology, except insofar as medicine covers that terrain.

But in that respect consider the 2001 prize for Medicine. (Chosen pretty much at random, btw, as the first to come up on a google search.) It went to researchers who have elucidated the detailed molecular mechanisms of the cell cycle (the orchestrated process of cell reproduction, it's control and timing, cell death, etc).

This research showed that the basic mechanisms are highly conserved among all eukaryotes (organisms having cells with a separate nucleus). So let's assume these molecular mechanisms are the result of ID. This then would be perfectly consistent with the claim that all eukaryotes are one "created kind". This helps quite a bit with that overcrowded ark!

IOW it is in most cases empty, and logically wrong, to say that some result "supports ID" but doesn't support evolution. ID is, at least logically, potentially consistent with truly huge amounts of evolution having occured, right up at or near the Kingdom level. The specific examples of systems that (allegedly) must have been intelligently designed are most typically ones that are shared by a vast diversity of organisms, often whole Phyla or Kingdoms.

Unless IDers are willing to offer some specific suggestions about HOW and WHEN these "designs" are brought into actualization by the "designer" in real living organisms, ID doesn't really contradict the major part of textbook evolution. Stuff like the evolution of whales, of horses, of man from ape-like hominids, of amphibians from fishes, is basically untouched by clear or specific contradiction with "Intelligent Design".

Of course the reason for this is that ID is vacuous. This is also the reason it is scientifically useless, so far any way.