Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question.

This is not necessarily correct. For example, much of "Junk" DNA can be unsolved code without it having been designed.For example, a bit of DNA can code for resistance to Black Plague. That could have easily evolved within the species, but discovering that that is what it's for might be very difficult.A better, more accurate, statement of ID might look like this:"If ID were true, we'd expect to see no features in man, or any animal, which serves no useful purpose." Appendix, vestigal tail, wisdom teeth, dew claws, genetic disorders, etc.Frankly, if I had hired an architect as "intelligent" as this designer, the building would be uninhabitable by today's standards.Imagine random closests which can't be used to store equipment, but which randomly explode, potentially taking down the building. Or, desks which sometimes grow out of walls sideways. etc.No, the proponents of ID don't believe in an "intelligent designer". The simple test is this - "Is it okay to teach this in schools if we use the name Mohammed for the Intelligent Designer?"

I can't speak for Annafan, but I can and will speak for myself.It's not that I believe that all ID proponents are religiously motivated, it's that I have yet to find one that isn't.You can say that attacks on one's belief system aren't attacks on one's argument, but clearly you are new to this debate.The reason I attack motivation is that ALL creationist arguments boil down to just that.Here's 99% of the arguements boiled down -
A creationist/ IDer makes an outrageous statement (ie Great Flood), then sites "facts" which are at best misunderstood and at worst totally fraudulent. (all animals were alive at the same time, but the process of fossilization artificially makes all the dinosaurs sink to the bottom of strata)Someone with an actual understanding of the facts points out the mistakes / misunderstandings in their statement. (The process of fossilization is well understood. Fossil do not sink between strata. If they did, there would be pieces of the above strata found with the fossil)The creationist replies with - "The Bible is fact! God set this up to trick people."From then on the argument consists of either-
Creationist - YES! Biologist - Um, no. Repeat.Or goes to -
Biologist - Can you offer some evidence which supports your theory.
Creationist - I don't have to, what I believe is my business, you can't disprove my religion.If someone want to have a SERIOUS debate about ID, I'd be happy to discuss it. But, what I'm not willing to do is cowtow to religious fanatics who want to cram their belief system down everyone else's throat.

I may have missed something in an earlier post, but I fail to see the logic in this statement.I will grant you that the term "junk DNA" is maybe the wrong term, but couldn't/wouldn't evolution account for DNA's usefullness.The suggestion that there are left over chunks of DNA which are long forgotten evolutionary cast offs may be in fact incorrect, however, to my mind that indicates a problem with the mechanics of evolution, not with the theory of evolution.Additionally, I think we would need to better understand this term "useful". For example, sickle cell anemia is an affliction, it's caused by two recessive genes. However, if you are a carrier with only one of the genes, you have an increased resistance to malaria.In Africa, this is very useful. In Manhattan, it's not.I would think that everything coded in the DNA sequence was at some point useful, but may not be useful now. How do we determine if this is proof of evolution or proof of ID.You could say, "See, this is useful, it fights off malaria. Therefore ID"I could say, "See, this is left over, people who aren't exposed to malaria are dying from sickle cell, therefore evolution."Who is right?Same can be said for wisdom teeth. They're great if you expect people to have lost a tooth or two before they reach 18.I'm sure people here could name a hundred more examples.

Pardon me if my post here is jumbled, I'm trying to transpose arguments from another thread to here.The big problem I have with ID right now is this:Some IDers are basically YECs hiding behind a different title. They say Goddidit, and expect the argument to stand at that.Other IDers are almost ToE supporters but with a fatalist twist. "Things are as they are because they were always destined to be such. There's nothing random about the events."Still others are claiming ID is nothing more than ToE without abiogenisis. (Which, by the way, IS ToE. ToE doesn't require abiogenisis).If the big argument in ID is that macro-evolution only happens at the hand of some Almighty Power, then let's discuss that. But, YEC IDers are saying that macro-evolution doesn't happen at all, that every species that exists/existed does/did so since the beginning of time oh those 6000 years ago.Can someone please, in a nutshell, explain to me what ID is. Not what it isn't. (ie "Theory of Evolution is wrong because...")Here's an example of a statement I am looking for (though I'm probably wrong)"Intelligent Design states that a force (God or Aliens) came down and started life on Earth, then though (method) steered that life over the course of (6000 or 450million) years. The processes of this steering are a, b, c, d. The evidence for this steering are e, f, g, h. We can observe more examples of this steering in i, j, k, l."I can't seem to find anyone who will say that.I see lots of "Here's the problem with ToE" or "How can ToE explain X".