What difference does evidence of ID make?

In my experience religious apologists often do not care about producing a consistent picture - they are only interested in raising objections to arguments and ideas contrary to their own views. The consequences of the objections are not something they even consider.Since IDC is primarily a disguised religious apologetic it is no surprise if they were to fall into the same trap.

It's pretty obvious that either Warren knows nothing about ID or he issimply making things up.Consider :

quote:

---

ID is itself a theory of evolution

---

But the ID movement is a blanket group covering anyone who beleives that intelligence is somehow involved in the origin of life - including Young Earth Creationists. Is Warren going to tell Young Earth Creationists that their views are a "theory of evolution" ?Or how about:

quote:

---

Nonsense. No ID theorist I know of makes the argument that something couldn't have evolved therefore it must have been designed.

---

Does Warren not know of Behe or Dembski ? Behe's irreducible complexity argument is exactly as described. Dembski's Explanatory Filter relies on eliminating ALL explanation other than design.These are the best-known arguments that ID has produced. And I know that I rased this very point in another thread. So Warren why are you denying that Behe and Dembski are ID theorists ? Or are you just trying to discredit ID by "defending" with obvious falsehoods ?

And to answer Warren's final question there is no such thing as "Naturalism of the Gaps". Nobody tries to take a gap in our knowledge as PROOF that naturalism is true.So the real question is "what is the difference between claiming that our ignorance of how something happened is proof that God exists and extrapolating known mechanisms to cross that gap, pending further investigation"I think that that question answers itself.