Defence of Intelligent Design

We all know that Walt wants to support creation, a religious view of science. So if Walt were to debate, he couldn't hold creation as an alternative to evolution, yet he wants to argue just that. It seems Walt is in violation of his own rules from the outset. All Meert was doing is pointing to the basis of his theories, the Genesis account, and giving Walt the opportunity to talk about the basis of his theories. It seems Walt is afraid to do this and has ducked the debate with Meert.If you want a continuation of this discussion, I would suggest opening a new thread. But just remember, reiterating that Meert wanted to bring religion into the debate is missing the overwhelming religious push that Walt wanted to bring to the table.

What many people on here have tried to convey is that Intelligent Design is not science, it is an opinion with very little evidence to back it up. You do know the difference between an opinion and science, correct? For example, ID comes down to a few points of opinion:1. Claim: Organisms are too complex to have evolved, they must have been designed.This is an opinion, being that there is no evidence given other than incredulity. Also, design is said to be self evident. I could just as easily say that the speed of light is incorrect, nothing can travel THAT fast. I could then expound on how the methods used to measure light HAVE to be wrong because I can't conceive of anything going that fast. I could then say that the theories on which the speed of light are based are JUST theories and shouldn't be trusted since they haven't been proven 100%. Is my scenario scientific? Or is it opinion devoid of evidence?2. CLAIM: Some biological systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC), therefore evolution could not have created these systems.Again, opinion. What evidence is there that evolution can not produce IC systems? Behe certainly does not offer any. He instead relies on the predisposition of his audience to swallow his OPINION as truth. In fact, there are IC systems that do show step by step progression in the fossil record. One such system is the middle ear. If you want, I can run through the evolution of this IC system, or you can peruse through it here.3. CLAIM: The designer does not have to be a supernatural being.This is clearly faulty logic. The first designer had to occur naturally, otherwise there must be an appeal to supernatural intervention. If the first designer came about by natural means, why deny that life here on earth could have come about by natural means. Could complexity be a hallmark of all life, regardless of origins? They still haven't answered this statement, and they still have to rely upon supernatural intervention at somepoint in the process.I don't know if you support or do not support the ID premise, but these are the problems I see from a scientific point of view.