Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

So where are the ID based experiments on Origins of life (OOL) comparable to the various naturalistic model experiments, i.e. testing of abiotic amino acid synthesis and peptide formation, identification of enzymatically active RNA sequences, testing for feasibility of self replicating RNA sequences?There is a productive ongoing chemical OOL research program in biology/chemistry. Where is the productive ID based OOL research program?Is there anything on the table from Meyer in fact other than one great big argument from incredulity wrapped up with a specious big number generated by pulling calculations out of the air.If you think that ID isn't being given the same chance then where is all the ID research being rejected from mainstream journals? There is nothing in this day and age to stop them getting it out independently. Even the Design Institute's own journal (BIO-complexity) has only had 2 papers in it and only one actually had any research. Why isn't it packed to the gunnels with all the ID research which has been blackballed by the mainstream peer reviewed journals over the last decade or more?TTFN,WK

I'm not sure how you missed the point of what Subbie quoted. It isn't that Behe is a 6 day creationist, it's that even ID's proponents frequently acknowledge that their 'science' is predicated on a belief in god. This leads us to ask, where then is the scientific method for detecting design they always claim to have? If it requires a belief in god then what sort of scientific objectivity can it possibly have? And the answer is it doesn't have it and the ID proponents themselves frequently say that for ID to be considered science the very concept of science needs to be radically changed.That wasn't Jones expressing an opinion about Behe, it was just him noting what Behe said. He also quoted a number of other expert witnesses saying that ID required a belief in the supernatural.If you want to claim that the flagrant creationists in the Dover case or who produced 'Of Pandas and People' weren't 'true' IDists, then go ahead and tell us what the actual distinction is. If they are so separate why doesn't Behe have the integrity to say, "This isn't ID it is creationism." and refuse to testify on their behalf?TTFN,WK

No it isn't, and the endless repetition by IDists and creationists won't make it so. If you want to claim it is necessary to decide if the world is naturalistic then fine, but to use evolution as synonymous with that is just ludicrous. Then you clearly haven't been reading any Origins of Life (OOL) research, perhaps that is why you are under the misapprehension that the ID side has anything even remotely approaching the naturalistic models concerning the OOL. That is quite a claim, now might be a good time to start providing some evidence to back it up. It might also help if you firmed up what your claim actually means, do you believe that god just created an initial self replicating organism with a DNA genome? The he created each individual species? That he is constantly using magic to tinker with the genomes of living organisms to modify them according to a divine plan? What does the origin of life mean to you? I'm taking about early self replicating molecules are you talking about making modern species out of clay and breathing life into them?There is no reason why the known natural mechanisms, mutation and natural selection, can't lead to the accumulation of information in DNA. What mechanisms does ID have?TTFN,WK