Man, you are one dense SOB. Whether ID was "designed" to support anything is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence to support it, and that is overwhelming. But don't take my word for it. Read what the greatest scientist of all time had to say about it -- before science had even an inkling about the amazing complexity of the simplest living cell:
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Read that over and over until you have it memorized, moron.
NEWTON???
please excuse my laughter: it assuredly isn't directed at Sir Isaac Newton.
I suppose you're of the school which considers Sir Francis Bacon's assertion "I have taken all knowledge to be my province" to be possible today, despite the fact that the sheer quantity (let alone the quality, density, accuracy, and precision) of available knowledge today is greater by several orders of magnitude.
ah, well... ignorance must have some kind of appeal - else far fewer would revel so brazenly in it.
There is not a single bit of testible evidence that supports ID. None. Never has been and never will be. ID is a philosophical arguement that has no material test. Moreover, the record clearly establishes ID as a disguised creationism. It's 'lying for the Lord.'
But don't take my word for it. Read what the greatest scientist of all time had to say about it -- before science had even an inkling about the amazing complexity of the simplest living cell:
I'm quite familiar with Newton's expression. I also know that his statement is entirely philosophical and is not scientific. If it is, show me where in all of Newton's works, God enters his equations. The simple fact is that Newton expressed his opinion based on his own religious belief. That hardly qualifies his expression as an endorsement of ID from a scientific perspective. Science is not in the business of thinking that if so-and-so said it, it must be true.
Only a creationist desperate for some form of validation would go back several centuries to find a personal opinon of a renowned scientist to base an arguement. The plain fact of the matter is that science doesn't care who said something, but rather if what was said was actually scientific. Quote mining does not get you far in science the way it does in social science, psychology, theology or politics. Science is a 'show me' endeavor. So far, ID has not shown anything nor produced anything. At best, it is an attempt to retrograde science back to the Dark Ages, where a simple 'godidit' was a sufficent answer to any question and if you disagreed, you suffered horribly by the powers that be.
Your ignorance is showing again RussP.
(On second thought - it never stopped, so why should I be surprised?)