[whattajoke]

Intelligent Design questions the scientific basis for evolution

But does a very poor job. We've been through eyes, puffer fish, sex, platypus, echo-location, flagella... what's funny is the ID crowd will pore over nature magazine and find something they don't understand. Then scientists put more study into it, publish papers on it, and sew up any holes that may exist. In an ironic way, science can thank ID'ers for pointing out things that can be studied more closely.

And btw, scientific hypotheses need to propose something. ID is simply literary criticism and creationism dressed up all pretty with a little lipstick on.

[metacognative]

A lot of wishful thinking in your paragraph. Can you think scientifically without the straw man 'creationism'? Are you a hard core atheist? Read " Evolution in Crisis" by Michael Denton.