Nature belongs to ID

You made a major error there.ID is supposed to be science, it goes to great lengths to pretend to be science, so you're not supposed to admit that it is religiously-based.Have to keep up the pretense, you know. Could you share some of that evidence with us?It might help though if you checked the following link first to see if that "evidence" has already been refuted. Index to Creationist Claims

The degree to which evolution is static vs. punctuated doesn't support ID in any way. If our current understanding of evolution is modified to include some or a lot of punctuations, that only makes the theory more accurate. That should be the last thing IDers want.Also, the "Cambrian explosion" was not a rapid event. In broad terms it lasted as long as 70-80 million years.

Without details and evidence, how are we to judge this "different explanation?"For all we know, from what you have provided, it could be no more than...