What exactly is ID?

(It's the first time i propose a subject so please correct me if I do something wrong)I would like to know what is really ID.
By that, I mean for ID:
-what is the age of the earth?
-what did the designer create? (species? genus? familiy?)
-when did he create life?
-I would also like to know if possible, what are the observations that lead to your answers.Of course feel free to give more detail if you have them.
I ask because most IDers say ID is a theory so it would be nice to know what we are talking about before arguing about the evidence.
All talks about evidence or evolution (like ID says this because evo can't explain it) SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ANOTHER thread.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

By that, I mean for ID:
-what is the age of the earth?

---

Something that shouldn't be discussed, until ID has won.

quote:

---

-what did the designer create? (species? genus? familiy?)

---

There's no official position on that.

quote:

---

-when did he create life?

---

There's no official position on that either.

quote:

---

-I would also like to know if possible, what are the observations that lead to your answers.

---

The statements and positions of various ID supporters.

quote:

---

I ask because most IDers say ID is a theory so it would be nice to know what we are talking about before arguing about the evidence.

---

But occasionally some admit that there's no theory of ID.

Intelligent Design is the idea that there are detectable signs of intelligence in the natural world.Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

Would it be fair to include the following?Intelligent Design also claims that these signs of intelligence exist in biological species and in the fundamental properties of the universe.

Not necessarily. Logically speaking, there is nothing that prevents someone from advocating intelligent design based only on the fundamental properties of the universe or the features of biological species. The two need not be together to constitute intelligent design.

---

Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I do.

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.

So, to you ID is just an idea? Not a theory? If it was a competing theory to evolution, shouldn't it answer the questions evolution does? At least part of them?

Yeah, I'm trying to work out the different positions of ID in this thread in order to make debates clearer in other threads without going off topic in those threads.

Here's the problem.ID is a political movement with a political goal. They have no interest in answering questions, no interest in collecting data.The ENTIRE goal is simply to confuse the public sufficiently to allow Christian Fundamentalism to hijack education.Check out the wedge strategy to see their aims

While it is what I think too, this thread is to give them a chance to prove me wrong.

What mention that you are hoping will happen in your above quote is not going to happen.Edited by Nuggin, : Obfuscating to reduce brievity.

Your last two messages totaled 5 words (the other is here).Please strive to avoid polluting topics with such things. Such messages are bad, and they have a tendency to lead to further bad.Or something like that.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE.Adminnemooseus

In short, for you ID only says that there is an intelligent designer and biological life is only a mean to prove it, right? If that's the case, I don't see the point of an ID/Evolution debate since it seems the two don't even talk about the same thing. (off topic: evolution says nothing about the presence or absence of a designer, it just doesn't use it)

Good question. I have yet to ever hear a satisfactory, universally accepted (among IDists), uniquely defined answer. Regardless, hope this helps some:Superficial ID answer: The planned out, "approved" responses that aim to move ID as far away from creationism as possible, even though ID is just creationism in disguise. It was a confusing childhood for ID...
Badly faking IDer: Creationists that take whatever they can from ID to forward their creationist agenda.
My thoughts on ID: From what I can tell, in all my illustrious and shiny experience. Superficial ID answer: As old as current science says.
Badly faking IDer: 6000 years.
My thoughts on ID: Depends on if the IDer is under-oath in the court system at the time. Ironically, this is when they lie. Superficial ID answer: The universe, and/or any biological system we cannot explain through evolutionary science (even though no one's been able to identify one yet).
Badly faking IDer: A whole bunch of kinds of aminals, and some birds.
My thoughts on ID: This is the strongest point of ID. Although still very weak on any comparison to actual reality, this question is the best one ID has to put forward their god-of-the-gaps scenario and convert recruits. Superficial ID answer: Sometime between there being no life on the planet, and when the first discoveries of life date back to.
Badly faking IDer: First, please use proper capitalization when refering to He who calls Himself "I am." He dunnit Wednesday or Thursday, depending on Genesis 1 or 2.
My thoughts on ID: They don't seem to focus on the timing-questions too much, it gets the Badly faking IDer's all riled up. Superficial ID answer: Science, plus the science of ID! (Huzzah!! *Lots of hand-waving and sparklers*)
Badly faking IDer: The Bible. You should read it. Take mine. *throws Bible at you* It touched you last! Now it's yours!
My thoughts on ID: I've read about the superficial leaders like Behe in the Dover Trial manuscripts. And I've been on this forum for a few years. That's about it. A fantastic idea. However, it is doomed before it starts because there is no evidence. Even the superficial-leaders don't have any actual evidence. The best thing is a vague notion that there may be something that isn't entirely explained by evolutionary-science, this is where ID is "proven" right. Of course, the fact that there must be no information means there'll never be actual evidence for ID anyway. Strange, and yet it's so captivating to try and understand the mental anguish that one must accept or be unaware of in order to embrace such a view.Happy journeys in your learning.