Everyone wants some evidence on ID. Understandable since most haven't heard any before. But here is an example of how science supports ID more. I was debating someone else on anther MB about the same thing. I said that "are we supposed to believe that we come from a fish that swam on a beach". He responded by saying "and we supposed to believe that we were just poofed out of no where". My IP addresses banded before I could respond. Go figure! I guess academia isn't the only place that can't tolerate outside the box thinking. Any way, some of us have heard of the relationship between matter and energy. That energy and matter are the same and are just in different states. But energy can be turned into matter and matter can be turned into energy. This has already been done in laboratories but only at the atomic level. This is what the replicators on Star Trek The Next Generation was based off of. Those Star Trek writers really did their homework. They were able to create food by turning energy into matter. Something that is obvious beyond what we can do. But for how long? Also their was an episode where Commander Riker was beamed up from an away mission. He made it back to the ship but some kind of way his transporter signature was reflected back and another Riker materialized on the planet. So there were two of them. Of which they found the other Riker years later. I know that this is a TV show, but we know that the relationship between energy and matter is real. How long before we have transporter or replication ability? If you can create an object using energy, then is it safe to say that you can also create life or a life? No you can't poof life into existence but you can use energy to create life if you had the know how. So in a sense you can say that it is possible for some higher power to just poof us into existence. So their is a valid view for creation. Where are the valid view of evolution? Where is the observation, which is part of the scientific method? Where is the evidence that cell mutation has benefited the cell? All the evidence that I have seen show that mutation harms and destroys the cell.

The problem with ID is that if the court hadn't rule that creationism had no place in the schools, the "theory" wouldn't have caught steam. Now with the Dover ruling, the proponents of ID scaled back and are now trying to push "arguments against evolution."

A theory is suppose to explain why things are they way it is. That means you start at the bottom observing, collecting facts, etc... Then you start forming an explanation as to why this and this happens. Over time, you modify your explanation and ideas until it fits with reality until you have a theory that can fully explain the topic in question. ID does it absolutely the opposite way. They started out with what they believe is an absolute truth and start looking for evidence to support it, and discarding anything that disproves their explanation instead of modifying their initial assumptions. That is so not science. Look at it this way. ID says that there is an intelligent designer but they never make any attempt to identify who that intelligent designer is. Can you imagine if a bunch of physicists propose that the earth is getting an influx of solar energy to sustain the planet but make no attempts to identify where the energy is coming from?

Are you supporting ID with Science Fiction? Btw, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes it impossible to "beam" things to other places.

Edit-Also, the writers of Star Trek have clearly stated that the replicator cannot create life.

Do you not read? I posted loads of obbservations, I can post a few hundred more if you like.

Also, you want observations? Where are the observations in your example? Sure matter and energy are related, but you used a horrible analogy from fiction. No proof whatsoever and certainly nothing I can draw as an observation.

The problem with current evolution theory is that the biggest gene pool - by far biggest by a magnitude of thousands - consists of bacteria, who are supposed to be 500 or so millions of years old, yet they are very simple, they haven't evolved into multicellular organisms.
(there are a few very rare semi-multi cellular bacteria, but not any truly multi-cellular)

So much for statements like 'it was very likely that the eye as an organ would evolve' (or actually, they say the eye evolved some 7 or 8 times independently in different organisms). No it wasn't! Because it's not even likely that one celled organisms become multi cellular organisms, even if they populate the whole earth, apparently.

Bacteria are everywhere.
they multiply with an extremely high rate

There's something "wrong" with the theory of evolution. What's stupid is that intelligent people don't ask this question about why bacteria haven't evolved much. It's a statistical impossibility.

Evolution, any god worth worshiping would have been weeping into his hands and have destroyed man by now! / London / UK

Some have evolved. A billion years ago. They themselves have an ancestor.

Huh?

Evolution happens because one trait is advantageous over another. Why would bacteria need to evolve? They seem to be doing just fine the way they are. Natural selection and evolution don't just happen for the hell of it.

Evolving isn't mandatory for all life at all times.  It only happens when a mutation makes one life form better able to survive when they're competing for food or other resources.  Or when one life form gets wiped out by a disease or something else, and another mutated version remains.

Cockroaches haven't changed much, and neither have trees.  They don't need to.  They already have taken over the whole planet.

And many times when a new species evolves, it doesn't even have to replace the earlier species.  So we can have bacteria, fish, monkeys, people, bugs, trees, and viruses, all at the same time.  It's not like overnight one species appears and the other one disappears.  It's a crazy complex web of families and kingdoms and species all related to each other, all mutating occasionally, and all eating each other and competing for resources.  The fact that bacteria aren't changing doesn't disprove that everything else is.