Help me understand Intelligent Design (part 2)

Nuggin, ID is not a religious theory, simply that Toe's missing links is the scientific evidence that validates ID. The scientists that have or are turning to ID realize the missing transitional fossils only supports the ID premise.
If missing transitionals were not missing, then Toe would be validated. ID being not a religious theory but based on sound scientific evidence has no reason to go to the age of the fossil because the missing links would still be missing.The fossil record simply does not lie. To an ID scientist the only missing link not missing is Intelligent Design.

The “Cambrian explosion” refers to the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans about 530 million years ago. At this time, at least nineteen, and perhaps as many as thirty-five phyla of forty total (Meyer et al. 2003), made their first appearance on earth within a narrow five- to ten-million-year window of geologic time (Bowring et al. 1993, 1998a:1, 1998b:40; Kerr 1993; Monastersky 1993; Aris-Brosou & Yang 2003). Many new subphyla, between 32 and 48 of 56 total (Meyer et al. 2003), and classes of animals also arose at this time with representatives of these new higher taxa manifesting significant morphological innovations. The Cambrian explosion thus marked a major episode of morphogenesis in which many new and disparate organismal forms arose in a geologically brief period of time.To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505).As a result, debate now exists about the extent to which this pattern of evidence comports with a strictly monophyletic view of evolution (Conway Morris 1998a, 2003a, 2003b:510; Willmer 1990, 2003). Further, among those who accept a monophyletic view of the history of life, debate exists about whether to privilege fossil or molecular data and analyses. Those who think the fossil data provide a more reliable picture of the origin of the Metazoan tend to think these animals arose relatively quickly--that the Cambrian explosion had a “short fuse.” (Conway Morris 2003b:505-506, Valentine & Jablonski 2003). Some (Wray et al. 1996), but not all (Ayala et al. 1998), who think that molecular phylogenies establish reliable divergence times from pre-Cambrian ancestors think that the Cambrian animals evolved over a very long period of time--that the Cambrian explosion had a “long fuse.” This review will not address these questions of historical pattern. Instead, it will analyze whether the neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection, or other processes of evolutionary change, can generate the form and information necessary to produce the animals that arise in the Cambrian. This analysis will, for the most part, 2 therefore, not depend upon assumptions of either a long or short fuse for the Cambrian explosion, or upon a monophyletic or polyphyletic view of the early history of life.

In any case, regarding the "substance" of Golfer's original point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you aren't interested in even briefly explaining how ID theory predicts/is confirmed by the fossil record, then you shouldn't be making such a strong assertion in a science forum.

The scientific evidence for ID is simply in agreement with the Paleontologist massive fossil evidences. There is no reason for the scientist to go to the age of the fossil. Transitionals would of supported Toe, instead the lack thereof "only" supports ID.Scientists have been hoaxed with frauds of a few fossils, it will take massive transitional fossils to derail ID. Scientists care about what is (not what is not)

From everything I've seen, ID is based on the lack of evidence.

But, as it stands, all I'm hearing is that ID is supported by this idea that certain fossils (like Archie for example) don't exist.

Darwin understood heredity, which is all that's needed to express ToE. Can you go into more detail about DNA and gene mapping, yes. Do you have to? No.