[js1138]

they already know in their hearts that ID raises a credible and substantial question...

ID raises a lot of questions, just none that can be addressed by evidence.

If you know of an ID assertion that can actually be tested, let us know about it. Perhaps you can discuss the ID research program. Perhaps you can name an irreducibly complex biological structure, one that would change your mind if it turns out to be made of separately functional components. Too bad the flagellum turned out not to be that component.

[JCEccles]

ID uses the same evidence that materialists use, particularly the structure of the DNA molecule. But it evaluates that evidence in accordance with strict mathematical and statistical models and information theory (negative entropy) to compel the conclusion that inanimate matter could not have bootstrapped itself into even the most meager and information-poor cell in the mere 15 billion years the universe has been in existence.

Some very bright people agree or have agreed with this basic conclusion including the former arch-atheist Antony Flew and the late Sir Francis Crick. Crick, especially, didn't like the implications and sought to answer it by appealing to panspermia. But panspermia doesn't answer the question. It just defers it.

[JCEccles]

Too bad the flagellum turned out not to be that component.

In the same bald, conclusory way I could say that it does.

The same scientific community that runs in a panic from ID, happily supports pouring millions of dollars into SETI, using the same mathematical and statistical models and Shannon information theory in the hope of discovering intelligently designed radio signals from distant galaxies.

Why is that?