There is plenty of evidence for evolution too. It's why I believe that at least some of it applies in formulating my beliefs about the creation.
what POSITIVE evidence can you cite?
Hey don't insult watchmakers.:)
Okay, sorry if I wasn't clear. "ID" obviously has validity, in the most literal sense: "Intelligent design" (as for example by humans) obviously does work and can produce results, such as watches, cars, etc.
What I was talking about was not "ID" the process, but the "ID postulate" (or "the ID movement" if you prefer) which asserts that some Intelligence and/or Design was responsible for the formation of life on Earth. *That* postulate (it doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis", much less "theory") has been knocking around for several thousand years without visible results.
To me there is plenty of evidence, but most of that can't be "proven" in a scientific sense or in a way that would be received by the scientific community.
But therein lies the problem. And it's more profound than ID's supporters realize.
Some think that the "requirements of science" are some sort of "club" that erects artificial restrictions to keep out the "unwanted" viewpoints. But that's not the case.
Instead, the scientific method has been developed over the centuries to incorporate reliable methods of acquiring valid knowledge, and avoid unreliable methods.
And the reason that "testable" and "falsifiable" are such large parts of that method is because they get to the core essense of telling sense from nonsense. Or even more to the point, useful knowledge from useless notions.
And that's the crux of the issue. If an idea isn't "scientifically testable", it's because it has *no* real-world consequences. It doesn't affect reality, or if it does, it does so in no predictable or useful ways. It is, in every sense of the word, a useless idea. An idea which has no practical value, which makes no difference, which produces no results. In short, it's an idea that doesn't make any difference whether it's true or not.