"What matters is that ID proponents have nothing to offer except a list of things biologists have not yet explained "
Exactly! I think it terribly amusing that ID has no problem with natural selection. Almost like they sat down, looked at the data and figured out what they can and cannot leverage on. 100 years ago they would have included all evolution in their attacks, yet today there is just too much evidence for micro-evolution. I guess they feel they still have a shot with macro-evolution. In 50 years, when there is as much evidence for macro as there is micro now, the ID movement will have either done its job or gone the way of creationism 1.0. Makes me angry, it is so dishonest.
"ID might be worth keeping around to help prioritize research questions, but mainstream science is already working on all the problems posed by ID. In fact all the data used by ID proponents comes from mainstream science."
I've considered this myself, whether it is good for evolution that ID attacks it, it can only strengthen, or expose weaknesses, which is the point of science. I've decided that IDers are so intellectually dishonest that their attacks can only hurt evolution. For instance, it doesn't help biologists to get grants for research when ID has so many people running around crying evolution is not science.
I have a question for you js. I don't want to ask an ID proponent, I want a real answer. This is not sarcasm BTW ;), I'm serious. Does it make sense to you that IDers feel ID is an 'alternative' to evolution? From what I can see, ID arguments, like irreducible complexity, are just attacks on evolution... Then they slip in the very unscientific conclusion that should evolution be proven wrong, the answer must somehow be magic. To me this is nothing close to an explanatory model, it a lame attack on evolution, with a non sequitur conclusion, nothing more. How could this possibly be taught alongside the enormous model of evolution as an alternative, seems laughable. It would go something like this:
"Ok students, that concludes your 5 week introduction to the basics of evolutionary theory. Now we are going to look at an alternative to evolution called Intelligent Design. Ready class, notebooks open... ID tells us the vast diversity of life on earth is a result of... magic. That concludes our section on ID, don't forget your essays tomorrow."
I never see anyone on our side mention that ID really explains nothing. How can it possibly be taught as an alternative? Without evolution to attack, it says nothing. At the best I would sell it as an argument against evolution. Am I missing something?
Look harder. I've been lurking on and posting to these threads for five years. A few names have changed, but one year looks pretty much like another.
I have two purposes in following these threads, neither of which is to convince the opposition.
The first is to convince the hundreds of lurkers that there are educated conservatives. The second is, that by posting myself, I am forced to learn things and sharpen my skills. Posting stupid things or badly worded arguments exposes you to a meat ax.
I can think of two or three posters who consider ID to be a useful scientific paradigm. They do not fall into the YEC camp.
Wolfram seems to have given some ammunition to ID by proposing that complex things can evolve from simple programs in the absence of selection. This is one of those ideas like string theory that might prove fruitfil in the coming century.