The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

There are debates over how important PE is - Gould claimed that it was responsible for all major evolutionary change while others think that more gradual changes are important, too.I would credit Eldredge and Gould with drawing paleontologists' attention to evolutionary theory since, it seems, that many had a mistaken view of gradualism that they (wrongly) attributed to Darwin.l

ID was always a strategy rathr than a coherent idea in itself. Part of that strategy was to form a "united front" between different groups of antievolutionists (mainly YECs and OECs). Another part was to try to avoid overt appeals to religious belief. Of course this removed all young-earth arguments and even made the group averse to putting forward anything but the vaguest or most tentative hypotheses as to what might have occurred.So there is no real contradiction between YEC and ID as positions. The disconnection is in the goals - many YECs want no compromise with old-earth positions and ID as it stands is just such a compromise. Even those YECs prepared to make such a compromise will do so only as a strategy - and if it that strategy fails there is no reason for them to support it.On the other hand if ID is to stand any chance of becoming a science it will have to divest itself of much of it's vagueness and become a clearer, more coherent position. But that would almost certianly force it to either endorse of deny YEC views - and neither option is likely to be acceptable to the current leadership.k

Sorry to dent your ego but I would be surprised if your grasp of the work of Behe or Dembski exceeded my own. You seem to prefer Wells who relies heavily on innuendo and misrepresentation to smear evolution and can't be considered as even reaching Dembski's level.You aren't that familiar with the evidence for evolution either given your repetition of the claim that there are only a very few transitional fossils.And the Kitzmiller trial made it quite clear that many opponents of evolution are against it for religious reasons.o

It's not how far back ID goes, it is the fact that Behe and Dembski are intellectual leaders in the ID movement. If you aren't familiar with their work, you aren't that familiar with ID.Your posts often resemble Wells both in content and in the tactics.And I certainly hope that ID is not around for much longer. The ID movement is dedicated to using political power to misrepresent and distort science. I would think that any person who is genuinely concerned with honesty - rather than in smearing opponents - would agree with me.o

Yes it is. THat ID should rely so heavily on spin and personal attacks while trying to pretend that that is what their opponents do would be funny if it wasn't sad.But the facts are that part of the point of ID is to try tpo get their ideas into science classes in the u.s> And to do that their ideas have to qualify as science.. But the ID movement is opposed to actually being scientific. So what else can they do ? Doishonesty and politics have to be their major weapons because they can't get what they want any other way.u

You're getting off topic here.However I never mentioned the courts. Political action can and does take place outside the courtsHowver it is utterly false to say that evolutionists have used the courts to force evolution on anyone. THe first relevant trial was part of a campaign to overthrow a rule forbidding the teaching of evolution. Later cort cases have been about the teaching of YEC as science and now ID as science - as well as attempts to hamper the teaching of evolution.The claim that the courts are used to silence critics is a blatant falsehood. And absolutely typical of the smear tactics employed by ID supporters. f

Yes, I;ve heard of the Scopes trial. It was held because a US state had banned the teaching of evolution in science classes. But evolution wasn't forced on anyone - it was simply that science teachers were allowed to teach science rather than suffer a religiously motivated ban.The pother cases you refer to are similar in that they are also attempts to manipulate the curriculum to the detriment of teaching science, motivated by religious belief.The clear fact is that evolution was established science BEFORE the Scopes trial. Neither "Creation Science" nor ID have achieved that. And that is a crucial difference.n