[Heartlander]

ID is applied in science and life everyday – just to man-made items though. Science will not ‘allow’ it to be applied to biology because it’s not man-made.

“When its empirical resources are exhausted, science itself closes the door to naturalistic explanation. -William A. Dembski

Once ID is let in to biology we can use it, as any other design theory, to make predictions:

Variability Problem -- What degree of perturbation allows continued functioning? Alternatively, what is the range of variability within which the designed object functions and outside of which it breaks down?

Restoration Problem -- Once perturbed, how can the original design be recovered? Art restorers, textual critics, and archeologists know all about this.

Optimality Problem -- In what sense is the designed object optimal?

Separation of Causes Problem -- How does one tease apart the effects of intelligent causes from natural causes, both of which could have affected the object in question? For instance, a rusted old Cadillac exhibits the effects of both design and weathering?

Intentionality Problem -- What was the intention of the designer in producing a given designed object?

Identity Problem -- Who is the designer? -William A. Dembski

[VadeRetro]

I answered you on Dembski already. When you repeat what people have already answered, and to the same people at that, clearly inviting what programmers call an "infinite loop," you risk turning into gore3000.

[VadeRetro]

I see that you were reapplying Dembski because I asked Andrew to show me someone reasoning with ID. Dembksi isn't doing anything at all to fill that bill.

You have to look back at the post where he reasoned the existance of a branch-point ancestor of whales and hippos presumably younger than Pakicetus. Without worrying about whether the details of his logic are right--OK, he may have forgotten about the anthracotheres, which take the hippo line back almost to Pakicetus--he took some data and predicted a new fossil. Your theory don't do that.

Now, Andrew has a creation theory that he claims does do what evolution does. That's because it retains common descent, variation, and the death of the unfit. It looks like evolution because it is, except some designer is running in at some intervals doing, pardon the expression, God-knows-what.

If that's your ID theory, you can relax and let science roll on. Just figure out something for the designer to do that nature wouldn't do anyway.