What will ID evolve into?

My prediction on the evolution of ID is that it's proponents will with increasing effectiveness continuing to forward concepts like irreducible complexity.
In other words I don't see a pressing need for them to evolve into anything else, instead staying the course by raising strong doubt about the plausibility of evolution.The virulent attack campaigns we see with growing regularity from the evolutionists, posted on sites like wikipedia will continue to raise growing suspicions from those who are still neutral and open minded.ID proponents should instead look to present themselves as calm, civil and confident in their beliefs, and that is what I expect to see.
I can foresee the proponents of ID contrasting themselves against insecure attack campaigns building on their credibility.
Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

If you disapprove of ranting, why do it? If you consider yourself an I.D.er, perhaps you can give us an indication as to what direction I.D. might go. Perhaps there's a project that will give us the first bit of positive evidence for the existence of the mysterious designers, for example. Strange. I thought most I.D. people accepted common descent. I also thought that they accepted "micro-evolution", which means that they would agree with transition between species.Perhaps you are giving us an answer to the O.P. question. Is it now an I.D. claim that each individual species was created? Do you think that there will ever be an agreement in the I.D. camp on what was designed and what's left to nature?What will ID evolve into?

The reason that ID cannot just stay the course is because it's already been ruled by the courts (in the recent case in Dover, Pa.) to be disguised creationism, and of course since creationism was previously ruled by the Supreme Court to be disguised religion this means that ID is also disguised religion.But if you think evangelical Christians will not seek out a successor to ID but will instead continue to push it, instead of counseling calm, civility and confidence, might it be better to instead suggest that they actually *do* science? What you call the virulent attacks against ID actually stem from grave concern at ID's dishonest campaigns for classroom representation without ever having done the science that would convince the scientific community. Science class teaches current views within science, so how can IDists justify teaching something that 99% of scientists in the relevant field of biology reject?That's why most evolutionists are expecting that ID will have to be succeeded by something else. Right now there's a temporary "something else" strategy that they call "Teach the controversy," but that is obviously just a stopgap measure.--Percy

I hate to disappoint you but the questions surrounding the origins of life on earth have NOT been answered in a courtroom.Most of these trials revolve around whether or not the teaching of creation or ID can be made MANDATORY in schools as opposed whether or not ID is plausible.These court decisions don't affirm evolution as factual.
And if they every attempted to, regardless of which way they ruled, unlike most others, I wouldn't celebrate their decision.
Rationally I couldn't put an ounce of stock into it.

This is off-topic, but just to address this because it is misleading, I didn't say anything about origins of life issues, which is a scientific question. But the issue of whether ID is science has been answered in the courtroom.If you disagree with this thread's premise, which is that recent events have made it necessary for the creationist movement to replace ID with something else, then it is sufficient to say so. But we're not going to change this thread's topic to instead discuss interpretations of court rulings. If that's what you want to discuss, then simply propose a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Two totally different things. I know of no one in the evolutionist camp that would say that the origins of life has been answered in science or a courtroom. Strawman maybe here. The courts have ruled it is a religion.Couple things you should do here.1) Follow forum rules. I see you ahve pissed off the Admin already on another thread.2) Understand the basics of evolution before you attack it. For example, evolution says nothing about the origin of life.3) Try doing some basic research about the subject matter.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

It's far more likely that this debate, by it's nature, will outlive you and many generations to come.Evidence for the "existence of the mysterious designers" adequate to satisfy an evolutionist is about as likely as evidence for the creation of life from non living matter absent of intelligent intervention.On both counts the evidence is strictly anecdotal for lack of a better description.On micro evolution... my understanding is that it pertains to small changes within a species as opposed to a macro evolution from one species to another.
Belief in one or both doesn't to my way of thinking preclude a belief in ID.And to answer your question, no I do not think there will ever be a 100% consensus among ID proponents on what was design and what was left to nature.Whether a person believes in ID or evolution devoid of intelligent intervention, much is left to speculation, I cannot logically foresee any group of thinking people deciding that they must negotiate their way to a complete consensus on each minute detail of a question this large and out of reach.If the insinuation is that a lack of 100% consensus on details within a larger concept summarily discredits ID then evolution suffers the same fate with it's lack of consensus (on punctuated equilibrium for one).

Why would any conversation I had with an admin concern you?
Don't answer we already know why.
It is embarrassingly obvious that you are making a poorly veiled plea for action from a moderator.
It goes like this...if you express outrage regarding my conversation with the admin you might win the admin's support and he might respond to your pleas.
It's pathetic but not at all original, we've all seen this lame tactic more times than we can count.As for myself I don't break down emotionally if each and every person doesn't share my beliefs and I certainly don't need any advise on what I should study coming from someone who is in all likelihood less informed than myself.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

I agree. There's still a flat earth society, for example, so we can certainly expect supernaturalists to be challenging natural explanations for natural phenomena for generations to come. Life is made from non-living matter. That's already a massive head start from the zero evidence position that seems to appeal to you. The existence of chemical reactions and their ability to create chemical phenomena is not anecdotal. The existence of fairies, djinns and angels is. What does a belief in I.D. entail? You mentioned irreducible complexity further up the thread. What makes you believe that mutations can only add features, and never subtract them? Is this really the direction I.D. wants to go in? I agree. It's like theology, or a discussion of the style and merits of the Emperor's new clothes. Agreement is impossible. Details!!!? I.D. ranges from people who think that the designer designed the first organism, then let things roll, right through to those who thinks he designs every species. That's not detail.No-one, including Darwin, ever thought that evolution happens at a fixed rate. What's the current I.D. view on punctuated equilibrium? The designers take periodic vacations?

We understand that you don't believe that ID need change to address its legal setbacks, but you're mistaken about why we care. While we might find it disturbing or perplexing that so many laypeople are suspicious of evolution and accepting of creationism and/or ID, we respect that people are entitled to believe what they want.The key issue (though not for this thread) is this: If this evidence is lacking, then why do IDists push for representation in science class? It is these efforts to push an unevidenced idea into science classrooms that we object to.The outcome in Dover means that ID as currently constituted cannot enter the classroom. This thread assumes that those who were pushing for ID in the classroom won't just give up after the Dover defeat and asks how ID might change or what might succeed it. And that's the topic of this thread.--Percy

No you don't.
It is well known that the primodrial soup is standard fair and 'we' don't object.
It's not evidenced yet the 'we' you refer to never objects.As far as the topic of this thread I already commented on what direction I think ID will take.
So I'm glad you understand what the topic is and guess it's a good idea for you to remind yourself.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

"Life is made from non-living matter. That's already a massive head start from the zero evidence position that seems to appeal to you."Umm no it isn't.
Cars are made of steel plastic rubber etc etc.
I don't know of one sane person that would use that as rationale to support a theory that these materials created cars.There is still a complex design and assembly involved.
I'm almost embarrassed for you with the need to point that out.Edited by TheWhale, : No reason given.

Cars don't reproduce and evolve through natural selection. It is therefore out of the question that very simple molecular components could have given rise to cars without a designer. With life it is different. Your comparison is irrelevant.

"The existence of chemical reactions and their ability to create chemical phenomena is not anecdotal. The existence of fairies, djinns and angels is."This one might take the cake.
Let's see if I can decipher this 'logic'.
There are chemical reactions, so that alone substantiate that chemicals brought forth life, they created it on their own.
As long as there are chemical reactions anything is possible with chemicals.You seem to be well versed in flat earth and fairies and it's becoming clear why.I would suggest this to you.
Get out your chemistry set and show the world this chemical reaction which creates life, you'll be world famous.
And like you imply it should be easy because there are in fact chemical reactions, it should happen naturally for you.
I'll be looking for you on TV.
Good luck.

You are aware, aren't you, that life, at it's most basic, is just chemical reactions, right? Perhaps, if you lost your condescension and "holier than thou" attitude and gave your responses even a modicum of thought, you'd be much more welcomed on this thread.Unless you're a troll, in which case, go back under your bridge.