What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

This loss of information we keep hearing about from IDers bears a striking resemblance to the religious belief in "devolution" since "The Fall."It has no basis in science.And they expect us to believe them when they claim that ID is not religion lite.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If you are asking why just the judge made the decision, the answer is that both sides agreed to that format.If you are asking why only Behe represented the ID position, the answer is the other invited witness backed out.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You are arguing that biology always results in a loss of information because of a belief in "The Fall" or whatever you want to call it.Sorry, that's nonsense. There is/was no such thing. Its a tribal myth.But because you "fell" for it, you keep trying to shoehorn scientific data into your fantasy world view, twisting it around as needed. But no matter how much you twist and distort it, the data doesn't fit, as posters have been pointing out to you for much of this thread.You perhaps are a classic example of Heinlein's statement, below, or my tagline:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Lets start a new thread for this discussion. Game?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

But you have provided no evidence to show that this is the case. Repeated claims do not constitute evidence and... (well, see tagline).And those folks who are most familiar with the scientific evidence on this issue (biologists) don't agree with you by an overwhelming number.Curious: only biblical literalists follow and promote your "degrading" argument.You may try to claim that you are pursuing science, but when 99.9% of scientists disagree with you that is a specious claim.If you really, really are pursuing science you are so far out on the fringe you couldn't see the mainstream with the Hubble.But I still think you are pushing religion, adhering to the bible as accurate on this point in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.(A related question: for how long has the human genome been degrading? And what is the position of Homo ergaster and H. neanderthalis in relation to either the global flood or the tower of Babel incident? Do you see them as products of "devolution" after a perfect creation represented by Adam and Eve?)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.