What exactly is ID?

Then another thread giving those detectable signs one at a time would be very interesting. I've not seen any that make any sense at all.

First parts right.Unfortunately, the second part hasn't been shown to be true.ID has so far been a combination of God of the gaps and attempts to poke holes in evolutionary theory with no replacement.If it is actually derived from the evidence then that has managed to escape me so far even after quite a bit of reading. Perhaps it is time to supply the evidence and logic?And things like the following don't cut it:1. Things are so wonderful/complex they obviously have to be designed.2. I can not imagine any way that could have worked so it must have been designed.3. Any argument from irreducible complexity which has been shown to be too flawed to be of use.4. Any argument from probabilities which have, so far, always been shown to be masturbating with numbers.

IC was constructed by deliberately disallowing evolutionary pathways that allow an "IC" construct to evolve. In addition, IC systems have been shown to evolve. It's done with. You second sentence is false and shows a misconception and bias you have. There are many biologists who are just as much believers as you are.The deal with numbers is you actually have to show your math. In all the cases I've seen of ID math it is bogus. The problem is that math looks very impressive to those not familiar with it a bit. The bad news for IDers is that math is very much clearer than baffle gab can be and therefore has been shown to be crap. If you have some that is not then a thread on that would be great and very interesting.Classic example; the chosen of one result out of very many (often an unknown size of many) and calculating a probability of that one occurring. Using exactly this math proves that no one can win the lottery in 1,000,000 years.This is the kind of crap put forward by the leading lights in the ID movement like Dembski. Since this thread is about ID we both agree that the "it's obvious" argument does't cut it. Calling evolution random is just another one of the infinitely repeated (and by now deliberate lie) errors of the ID movement but that is for another thread.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.