I find it hard to believe that ID makes sense.
ID has no explanation whatsoever for extinction of species. ID has no explanation for why all mammals share hemoglobin as the oxygen-transporting molecule in the blood. An "intelligent designer" might have chosen a copper-based molecule or a fluorine-based polymer, rather than use the same old molecule over and over. And over again. Did the designer lack imagination?
ID never explains species of the cat family having retractable claws. Oh, yes--it was a created "kind".
With enough miracles, suspending natural laws, anything is possible. There is no limit under ID. Crop circles, yep, ID. Stalinism, yep, ID. ID removes every aspect of personal moral responsibility.
And, we have this quote from Duane Gish, a famous creationist:
"We have to have intelligent design as our first line of defense for Noah's Flood. The scientists' evidence against the Flood may be successful, and this undercuts the Bible interpretation. Intelligent design is important to focus attention on the Spirit of our Lord."
Awesome--the real problem is Noah's Flood? Which, ironically, ID does not address.
Stop right there.
It is evolution which dictates that man, and all creatures for that matter, are inherently morally neutral.
Evolution has no basis whatsoever for postulating otherwise.
Maybe my post #16 explains what I was talking about a bit better.
I have no axe to grind with either side of this argument. I think that both are sufficiently pointless.
If you are arguing this point from the atheist side, you should find something more productive to do with your time. If you are a creationist you should concern yourself with salvation rather than biblical nit-picking.
Dude, my two cents were up a few paragraphs back...
As for the hemoglobin/carbon/DNA argument, well, do you listen to music? Most bands have a signature sound, regardless of the song. Many painters, architects, and sculptors have a basic style that is detectable throughout most if not all of their work. Could you not say that hemoglobin, cell biology, and DNA are a form of the signature of the designer? The variances in the macroscopic forms, like your example of cat claws, and things like different species (all the types of fish, corals, birds, etc.) are just different works by the same creator, with the same underlying style.
Intelligent design does not remove every aspect of personal moral responsibility, it just doesn't address it. If there's a Creator, then it is probably safe to say said Creator is still around, and it isn't wise to piss Him off.
I really don't get the Noah's Flood thing. For the record, I'm also not familiar with most of the ID arguments/proposals. The above just represents my immediate thoughts on the matter.
No, she tried lots of different flying mechanisms, bats, birds, fish, insects....