Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.

If the random beneficial mutation process of evolution were true, we should expect to see volumes of DNA that has no express purpose and is simply "left overs" from useless mutations - what evolutionists have largely discarded as not worthy of further investigation in recent years.If ID were true, we should expect to see intent and purpose in virtually all DNA that neo-Darwinists have termed "Junk".The evolutionary approach has neglected to devote much effort studying the seemingly extraneous "junk" DNA.The ID approach persists in finding a better understanding in the hidden treasures.
That hardly seems like a "road block" to me!While neither evolutionists nor IDists can "prove" anything, this type of evaluation is useful in determining where to look for new discoveries. A Google will reveal some interesting developments.
We are likely just scratching the tip of the iceberg.

Couldn't agree more! I think it is very good advice for anyone engaged in analysis. Attacking an opponents character and motivation rather than ideas is a sure sign of weakness, ar at least emotional bias, in one's position.I suggest folks like Annafan and Nuggin are remiss to believe all or most proponents of ID are just religiously motivated or even "liars for Jesus".
In my experience, people of many disciplines, and especially engineers, are advocates of some form of ID - perhaps because they understand by experience how difficult a process it is to design reliable functionality (even with tons of education and intelligence).Regardless, lazy debate tactics may be fun and appear to win a battle but yet they often lose in the war of ideas.

Hi WK. The point I was trying to make was:
If virtually all DNA is found to be imbued with purpose, then this is predicted by, and evidence for Intelligent design. It also refutes the evolutionary notion of random processes and "leftover junk". Of course there is damaged individual DNA today but that doesn't preclude prior purpose.Likewise, the evolutionary view of the human appendix as a worthless leftover organ is controversial among physiologists and may end up as I believe "Junk DNA" will - an embarrassment for evolutionists. Other such arguments made in a prior post - Ditto. I may be wrong but one thing we can probably all agree is: these are exciting times of scientific discovery!Not sure where the bulk of current research is coming from or each researcher's views of origins - but it's a good guess that they are all over the map much like the general population. The important thing is that research is not tainted by bias or premature conclusions.