The fact that the laws of the universe are perfect for life is evidence for a Designer. The fact that the laws of the universe can't produce life is evidence for a Designer.
ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
Greater and greater numbers of scientists are joining the ID movement, which is why we keep referring to the same three year after year. [1]
I personally have posted articles from at least 10 different credentialed (albeit by the university system in the United States) scientists who have raised clear arguments to the evolutionary models inaccuracy.
ID is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution".[2]
I have read papers by scientists who hope to legitimize their arguments to academia, which I regard as political correctness, but it may enable their ideas to be published to the mainstream scientists for peer review.(as in the professor who wouldn’t give a student a letter of recommendation if they didn’t acknowledge evolution. A completely LIBERAL methodology)
We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. [3]
See prior response.
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. [4]
Unfortunately data that would support a young universe is few and far between because of the presupposition of an old universe. Many good Bible believing scientists hesitate to take a stand on this issue because some evidence does seem to present an older universe, while other evidence begs for a young universe. Good scientists will continue to gather the evidence without positing a model till they have irrefutable evidence to support it (unlike evolutionists).
ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement, which does not support ID, but does say that they are "skeptical" of Darwinism. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don't count, because they're all biased. [5]
Another repeated point, I think you guys need a new list that has more than so few points. See response #1
ID is a program for research into the science of design, nothing more. Part of our research plans are to produce coloring books for preschoolers, and to make ourselves more likeable at parties. [6]
Another repeated point. See earlier response. The data creates the model; the model does not create the data.
ID is a scientific theory for detecting purpose and teleology in nature. But don't ask us what that purpose is, because that's a religious question that's separate from ID.
Repeat again. ID is an overriding principle, which can help to focus the consideration of evidence, but not direct the conclusions. (Unlike evolution)
The Designer could be anything from God to a space alien. But the Raelians, who believe it was a space alien, are being illogical.
A majority of the serious ID scientists are Biblically literate Christians (which is the only logically, proven truthful belief to have), but then evolutionists have drug this none scientific issue into the discussion.
Off to Church, will consider the other points this evening.