The ID political (and faux-scientific) movement is specifically what I am referring to here. There is little consistency on the part of ID proponents (as I think I said several posts ago) as to the age of the Earth, just as they avoid identifying the designer. This means there are both YEIDers and OEIDers.  However whatever the take of the individual, the basic thrust is the same - Irreducible Complexity, from the Word of Behe- and the proponents (not those who simply think it "possible") attempting to push this as science deserving a place in the classroom, or getting "equal footing" with NeoDarwinian Evolution are almost all from the Fundamentalist Creationist branch.

I should also point out that a list of physicists supporting the "possibility" of a biological and theological concept is about as valid as trying to discredit M-theory by lining up a bunch of biologists.

Scientists believe in evidence, not proof.

Fixed.

Of course I should point out, with my best friend being a FC (according to him anyway), that saying that FCs are the main force pushing ID is not the same as saying all or most FCs are. Honestly, I have no idea just how many of them care about the issue- it could be 90%, it could be 5%- but I don't believe that to be terribly relevent.

I've not really voiced my opinion on the issue yet, partly due to being busy but I've been following the discussion to the best of my ability.

It seems to me the biggest problem or hurdle that ID needs to leap to be taken seriously is to do two things. First lay down some sort of standard or method by which you would scientifically declare something too complicated to not be designed (which would then need to be vetted by observable facts and probably modified several times), at least then there is objectivity in the decision.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly show how declaring that something was designed in any way furthers scientific understanding, and would thusly be relevant to the scientific community. If the only contribution of this "theory" (using the term loosely) is to say "this was designed" I honestly don't see how that helps, particularly if we are to assume that the designer is claimed to be omnipotent and set out with the intent of making it appear natural.

I would also like to see them distance themselves from the idea that the implication of design naturally leads to the necessity of a God designer. A design does necessitate a designer, god is merely the only possible designer many of them choose to consider, but (and as much as I hate to go here) other options have equal evidence, for instance Aliens.

The mere fact that their proposal would lead us to make conclusions like "Aliens may have caused this." is what really makes me shake my head and say "This is not Science.". Ultimately I don't see where this has a place in Science but I think the issues I pointed out above are some great first steps that could be made to legitimize it if that is truly what they wish to do.

I continually see people clamor for ID to be taken seriously, and I would return that challenge and ask them to take Science and their own proposal seriously. If they wish to be accepted by the scientific community they should, by course of logic, make their proposal through Scientific channels. To date they have attempted to gain access to such channels but not the way scientists do, but rather by insisting that it be given to them.  Hell the idea of ID changes depending on who you talk to, and there doesn't seem to be a "correct" ideology on the subject...that is a serious problem for an idea that wishes to be taken as science.

To put it simply: Put the work into your ideas and earn your time at the podium like every other idea.

I just saw my first episode of Planet Earth. It was the "Fresh Water" episode, on Blu-Ray, on a TV the size of a winnebago.

Instead of asking if life on earth is too complicated to be created through evolution, we should ask such awe inspiring complexity and variety could possibly be created by a single intelligence. To me, the intelligent design "theory" falls down pretty fast against that question.

As much as I agree with the sentiment I think that is where the "Almighty" part of the name "Almighty God" comes from. Omnipotence has its advantages....well actually it pretty much has every advantage...no really it has them all by definition.

ID is set up to fail if you look at it a certain way. If there is an intelligent creator, how can you *test* that through experimentation? You can't turn God into a variable or a constant in a lab.

It's like trying to prove that stone henge or the pyramids were designed/not designed.

ID people also go to the "God of the Gaps" argument, simply going to a spot in science where we are not sure (i.e. say, the origin of the universe or crazy theoretical physics) and say "See? Scientists can't figure it out! It must be God" That's somewhat of a copout and its also setting yourself up for failure as well.

Once we do figure out the mathematics or physics behind a previously unknown theory, then the ID person would just cop out again and go to the next "gap" in science.

On the other hand, just because you believe in a creator doesn't mean you have to disregard science all together. That's like saying "well, the Mona Lisa was intelligently designed, so we don't need to analyze it anymore."

How stuff *came to be* can be argued, but no matter what you believe, you can still look at and analyze how stuff *works* and appreciate the physics and mathematics behind it.

@ That Guy: Well said. Nuff Said.

I also find it ironic that the pendulum has swung the other way. 150 years ago, someone claiming to be an evolutionist would have been flamed and pretty much ridiculed out of the scientific community (or at least out of VG Chartz, if such website existed 150 years ago).

Now its the other way around and "Intelligent Design" is the new 4-letter word in science.

My opinion on the matter is that we could reach some sort of balance.

I have no objection against ID people having their own college courses. If such a demand is there, then there should be a class about it. At this point, however, my opinion is that it should be held as a general elective (much like how theology or philosophy can be general electives). If people want to learn about creationism, then they are certainly welcome to do so. People who subscribe to evolution can still take their evolutionary biology classes.