Giving your disagreement an incorrect highflown motive and insulting me doesn't diminish the vast gulf of almost total disagreement between you and the brilliant ID scientists. You don't disagree with their assumptions, unless you are disagreeing with the scientific method. You disagree with the conclusions they have come to (and which they share with almost every other professional biologist in the world) from studying abundant data. Namely:
Again, those are conclusions, not assumptions. Only young earth creationists incessantly and dishonestly try to paint well-founded conclusions derived from following the evidence where it leads as assumptions.
However, their scientific findings certainly does not undermine creationism.
You don't think that the above scientific findings undermine creationism? Then you are happy to endorse all of the scientific findings listed above? I doubt it.
Perhaps you could update me and share what scientific findings that specifically would give a creationist problems with ID?
See the above list of scientific findings endorsed by the prominent brilliant ID scientists that stick in the craw of creationists. The sum total of ID is that because there are gaps in our knowledge we can speculate that sometime, somewhere, a Designer did something, but we don't know what, where, when, why, or how. Not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one, derived from ignorance, and leading nowhere. That is the extent to which the brilliant ID scientists disagree with the rest of science, that they wish to have that philosophical statement considered science too. A young earth creationist has no more in common with the ID scientists than she has with any other evolution supporting biologist who also believes that God created the universe and sacrificed Jesus for our sins (and there are many of those).
The world is billions of years old
Life on earth is billions of years old
All of life on earth shares common descent
Evolution is a fact
The scientific theory of evolution is the best explanation of the fact of evolution yet found
There is no physical evidence of supernatural (Designer) intervention for the past several-million years
Please, give me your sources and also the ID proponents of these above statements.
Again, I support all of the specific scientific research of ID scientists. Behe, for example, simply focused on specific biochemical "machines" and revealed design not chance.
But please, enlighten me? Again, I don't believe Behe, for example, claims to be an expert of the age of the world;he is not a geologist. In the areas where Behe is an expert, his research does nothing to undermine a creationist view. His philosophical statements in other areas are irrelevant to me. Creationists are interested only in "real science" and ID scientists , as far as I know, are credible. So, your statements you attribute to ID scientists are meaningless to me unless they are backed up by their own research. But..I would appreciate your sources with specific quotes from from identified ID researchers who have made these statements. Otherwise, your post is a bunch of generalizations and dubious in nature.
Creationists do not deny micro-evolution as long as the definitions in the discussion are specific.