What is the I in ID?

Supernatural action, obviously, either at speeds exceeding the speed of light from a distant location or invisibly by an undetectable "hand" -- in either case the action must be taken on faith as it cannot be measured or determined regardless of the verbal deification given. This is why ID is a faith based belief, hence a religion, regardless of claims otherwise.Heh.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

looks like you have a taker ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Which has to have been set into motion by some unknown process before DNA existed billions of years after the beginning of the universe or there was some mechanism to put the plan into action at a later date - a CAD design is not a new car, just an imagined object, and there has to be some physical process to realize the CAD design into an object. This is about ID not creationism, thus all references to the bible are irrelevant, along with any denial of reality used to justify a 'Young Earth' scenario. ID specifically accepts an Old Earth and the fossil record.The question is how does the design get off the design table and into action, k?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

there are also insects that have evolved wings, then evolved further and lost their wings, then evolved wings again ... which version is the designed version -- winged or non-winged?or is there some kind of "focus group" that keeps changing it's mind?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

this is just warmed over creationism, not IDall biblical references are irrelevant to IDthe question posed here is how does the design get implemented.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

still no mechanism for getting from design to reality ...still more warmed over creationism, irrelevant to the question of ID

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

adam and eve and the flood are biblical references and have nothing to do with ID: they are not required for ID to be true, and therefore they are irrelevant.creationism and ID have a very basic conflict in that creationism say it was all done is 6 days by a very specific god, while ID says it is an ongoing process that started with the beginning of the universe and could be guided by little green men from alpha centauri.any and all references to the bible are irrelevant to the discussion of ID.and where is that mechanism whereby "design" is processed into reality ... ?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am just telling you where you are mistaken about ID and what it really means. If you think I am an atheist you either haven't been paying attention or you use an incorrect definition of the word.Now, in the interest of some real independant information on the subject of ID, please see what Wikipedia.com says about ID:
(Intelligent design - Wikipedia) (bold in the original, original hyperlinks not copied).That some creationists do not have a conflict between their belief and ID means they just have not considered the full ramifications of the differences: multiple non-divine aliens responsible for all the elements of earthly life? If that is not a contradiction of creationism I do not know what would qualify.Now for a little further corrective education. I can claim that my personal beliefs have more to do with the founding of the USof(N)A than christianity, and while that may seem grandiose to some it is more accurate than the claim of christians in that regard. Please see the Wikipedia.com article on Deism (Deism - Wikipedia): (bold in the original, original hyperlinks not copied).Note further that Deism is definitely a religion, and that it requires even less action than ID asks of its "designer" -- thus ID is also a religion and it will not pass the 'separation test' for admission to public school science class regardless of the misguided hopes and dreams of some people who are intentionally trying to misrepresent their beliefs.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

hmmm ... maybe you should cease and deist ???

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Actually the ID people are adamant that their concept does not include god so that it can 'get around' the separation of church and state requirement and to make it seem to be an independent avenue of inquiry appropriate for public school. See:Intelligent design - Wikipedia I am not surprised at your experience, as it seems that creationists think that ID is the best thing since sliced bread as a way of infiltrating god into the classroom, a Trojan horse if you will. This is faulty thinking on their part, due to inherent irreconcilable differences. The ID concept is that we can discern evidence of design by the result of action. It follows that the mechanism of that action is either readily apparent or the action is supernatural. Absent any evidence of action by natural forces one is left with the conclusion that it can only be design by supernatural action, and that implies a supernatural being. That means one or more gods by definition.Your thought experiment is interesting, but it is also a documented fact that natives unaware of the process of manufacturing thought that watches were magical objects rather than man-made objects. Also think of a kaleidoscope: viewed from one end the beads are shown in a pattern, from the other just a random jumble; the appearance of design is from a selective viewpoint that is not based on the reality.Also see http://EvC Forum: Is ID properly pursued?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}