What exactly is ID?

Precisely. You have decided in advance that there must be a designer and now you are on a quest to find the evidence for him. Meanwhile, real scientists are not on a quest to disprove a designer - they are neutral in this regard - they are simply looking for evidence that might help provide explanations. The evidence continues to suggest no "signature", from Yoda or anyone else.It is irrellevant that you don't describe or identify the designer - the very fact that you proceed under the assumption that there is one invalidates your method.Instead you should be asking "What does the evidence tell us about the past and the nature of our origins?."If you objectively ask that question, and let the evidence lead where, in fact, it does lead, you will find yourself without the need for a controlling intelligent agent or designer.

Hi traderdrewYou said earlier that Darwinism proceeds under the assumption that there isn't a designer, but no more so than ALL science proceeds under the assumption that there isn't a magical man behind a curtain pulling levers. Ok fair enough then... motive has no bearing on the validity of a claim. Evidence SHOULD stand or fall on its own. The problem is that for centuries now we've been accumulating this evidence. The evidence demonstrates natural forces at work, and NOT some sort of mystical controller. Why now, when we've come so far, do ID proponents want to take us backwards and start plugging chocolate sprinkles into the equations?As has been pointed out many times now, the moment anyone introduces the supernatural into science, it isn't science anymore.No weight can be placed on unsubstantiated claims.

Funny that you should use the infinite regression argument in favour of a creator, on the basis of some convoluted logic that basically amounts to "we exist, therefore we must have been created".You don't eventually get to a place where you cannot answer... you could continue to ask "who created the creator of the creator"... and so on. It wouldn't get you anywhere though. And that is the point of the infinite regression argument when discussing the origins of life. To posit a designer at some stage in the past doesn't get you anwhere, but simply raises more questions than it answers.I just can't get over how you guys seem to miss the inherent beauty of a universe that does not require your imaginary designer, which is of course, the universe we live in.Which is more exciting and awe-inspiring? A universe in which the most amazing variety of life can come to exist through the very laws inherent to that universe, or one which requires a choreographer to constantly keep tabs on everything and guide the process? If I was inclined to believe in supernatural origins, I could only imagine doing so in a deist fashion - i.e. I would accept all the evidence we have and appreciate the magnificent way that things have evolved, whilst simultaneously feeling reverence to whatever supernatural force started the process. The reason I am not a deist is that, having observed how all these processes take place without the need for a designer or choreographer, I see no need to assume that there must have been one at some more distant past to kick start things.

In a very real sense I am! And I find the notion so much more fulfilling than the idea that I am 6,000 years old and was put here by this magic guy in the sky. But if your point is to ask how could I make such a statement without having the entirety of time to come to that conclusion: Simple. I don't need the entirety of time to make informed observations about the universe any more than I need to be an evolutionary biologist to participate on EVC. The knowledge we have is enough to reach informed conclusions. There are no "type of questions" I don't like. I like all questions. You are asking the question "How did God go about designing things?". I am asking the question "How did things come to exist?" - I "like" both questions, as they seek answers, but your question is heavily loaded and makes invalidating assumptions. You need to ask yourself which question is more honest and objective.As for "CSI", I think Percy dealt with that adequately more than once now. It is these sorts of unquantifiable, unsubstantiated attempts to make creationism sound like science that loses you guys a lot of respect from actual peer-reviewed scientists.If you expect any theory of intelligent design to become mainstream, first you have to play by the rules: evidentially based, peer-reviewed, experimentally tested, and so on.Creationists seem to think that mainstream science is out to quash these ideas because they include a designer. That is simply not the case. The ideas are rubbished because they are not evidence-based and do not hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Court cases around the USA (and probably elsewhere) have come to this conclusion in a legal sense, concluding that in order to call ID science you'd have to start calling astrology and alchemy science as well. You'd basically have to redefine science, a wholly unnecessary and dangerous prospect.Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

...Fantastic. Dogma, by definition is set forth in an authoritative manner. One definition of authoritative is " Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable". The "way" you are referring to is the scientific method, peer-review, supporting evidence, etc. In that respect, yes, it's our "way" or the highway. How else could it be? Shall we discuss the Stork Theory of Reproduction?Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

The rest of the quote reads as follows: So you neatly avoid these other details. You quote the one sentence as if to imply that reputable scientists are somehow "not convinced" about Darwinism. Your quote mining fails.

What "software codes" are you referring to? If you are using the phrase to refer to biological systems that can be described through analogy as "software codes" (such as DNA), please provide some evidence that an intelligence designed these. The onus is on you (meaning ID proponents) to provide evidence for this. So you wish then to play "god-of-the-gaps" and say that, because we don't know (yet) of the specifical natural causes for abiogenesis, then there must have been an intelligent agent. This stance is unconvincing. No. ID is tantamount to throwing your hands up in the air and saying "well, it MUST be god then".

What evidence do you have that the first living cell contained DNA? Besides, you still haven't told me about your supporting evidence for the conclusion that an intelligence designed DNA. If you mean "faith" in the sense of "a high level of confidence based on its previous track record", then yes, but since the primary definition of faith is "belief without evidence", then no, I wouldn't call it faith. It may be that science never explains abiogenesis completely. That does not mean "god did it". Ah but you see, that's what science does - it says "well there must be a naturalistic explanation" - if it did not do that, it wouldn't be science, it would be religion. You base your concept of intelligence on mankind. Wouldn't you think a supreme being would have an intelligence beyond your imagination? If "he" did have such an intelligence, don't you think he could've done a better job at design? We are so very prone to disease and decay - this designer doesn't seem so intelligent after all.

Fair enough, but we aren't really even adequate are we! One rogue asteroid, like the one the Russians are gearing up to save us from (404) is all it would take to put our species on the massive scrapheap of failed ones. I admit I'm reaching a little here, but this is a plausible scenario that would render this designer's entire "humanity project" done and dusted. Why would this designer feel the need to put us in such a vulnerable position? (You could get around this by suggesting the God has created humans on other planets around other stars, but I'm guessing you won't.)I'm not suggesting your designer be perfect, I simply posit that, if he is capable of what you claim he is, he should have been capable of achieving a better result than what we see.

I hope you realise the arrogance of declaring yourself a victor in debate. I personally haven't witnessed your "defeat" of anyone on these forums, much less the "many of them" you claim.I am guilty of making bold statements in posts and having to retract them later. Would you care to retract your self-aggrandising declaration of victory, or do you stand by it?