Can intelligent information exist without an observable physical medium like DNA strands to record it? If the observable physical medium 'evolved' through random processes to manifest intelligent information could those 'random' processes be considered intelligent? These are the kinds of questions you need to consider before dismissing theories like ID as non-scientific or non-sense

Justin86 - you just proved my point....

quoting you "that mutations are the testible variable, evolution fails miserably because they're happening and none of them seem to be cheating 2nd law of thermodynamics"

Mutations happen - tick
cheating 2nd law of thermodynamics - do not need to...

To summarize an important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously

If god did exist, then logically it would either be within our dimensional universe or outside it, in another dimension that would allow that god to oversee its creation.

If god is within this universe and we are made in its image, then god must be the basic elements (spirit) that make up the building blocks of this dimensional universe and they don't change, just unite in varying combinations to change and evolve the universe. The freewill that religion espouses to justify their evil actions within the world, would actually be, freewill for the universe to operate in a state of changing ordered chaos, thus allowing for the wide differentiation of intelligence, entities and energies that abound within it.

If god were outside the universe, then it would be reasonable to assume that god would be a very large thing, so immense that it would dwarf our universe by many many times, to enable god to create and oversee this dimensional universe.

If this latter explanation were true, then according to the size of our planet and the as yet unseen size of our universe, god would see us, the so called intelligent inhabitants of this planet, as either the size of a billionth of a nano, or with his all seeing eyes, ants upon a revolving ant hill. Would god as his followers on earth do, see us as just ants without intelligence, or as beings with a different intelligence to other beings in existence. After all, according to our size, we are really very small in the scheme of things. If god is not within our universe, and created it, then he would be in the past and irrelevant to the future, just like ID, meaningless for what is to come.

Sadly the ID freaks, fail to see beyond their blinkered, narrow minds and see what confronts them in reality, out there into eternity.

Philo. Spiders placed in different environments, evolve their webs until they have one that suits the situation, all life reasons within its dimensional understanding, obseration will show you that.

I think it is good to see Creationism EVOLVING! Darwin would be proud.

What really gets my goat is the deciet used by religious organisations in order to peddle their ideas. ID is clearly a wolf dressed in sheeps clothing. They should know better.

justin86, there are a number of grounds on which evolution may be falsified. For example, in addition to the previous statement, Darwin also wrote:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Do you know of any such species?

I agree with you that ID cannot be falsified (and is therefore not a scientific theory) and Big Fish has explained to you your misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (a common mistake to be sure).

Darwinism is testable and can be falsified. That is hasn't been falsified does not mean it can't be falsified, simply that it has been tested and, up to now, has passed.

Of course, if you can demonstrate how ID can be falsified, then I am sure the scientific community will be willing to test your theory.

DavidLatimer
In terms of inventing arguments are you playing the role of the pot or the kettle today?

The fact that you equate ID with creationism shows your lack of objecitvity.

You also need to understand that taking comments out of context is intellectually dishonest. For instance, my 'argument for teaching creation' is schools was made in the context of Sylvia's remarks. This context shows a clear logically valid argument. Let me spell it out so you can understand it.
ID is not useful (or science) because it makes no predictions.
Predictions are therefore necessary for something to be science/useful
Creation Science has made predictions that have been borne out.
Creation science meets Sylvia's definition of useful/science.
Syvlia's definition is therefore wrong or creation science is useful/science.

My argument was a counter-argument to show that Syvlia's complaints are a self-serving effort that would be discarded when it wasn't convenient for her own bias.

My arguments examples also show that complaints about ID or creation science being science stoppers is historically and evidentially false. Yet the biased evolutionary evangelists still keep using it. What is even more ironic is their repeated references to 'random mutations' as a cause. Randomness is not a cause. To say it is, is irrational nonsense.

ID is indeed the product of inductive reasoning. This is clear from the arguments of specified complexity and irreducible complexity. To argue otherwise is just evidence of the irrational bias of the evolutionary fanatics.

You also equivocate on the term evolution/darwinism. You bird flu example may rely on knowledge of mutations and change of genetic structure (Which nobody here doubts) but this is not the same as particles to people evolution (which is a unique historical claim based on assumption after assumption).

Particles to people evolution is not falsifiable as the host of ad hoc explanations that are used show quite clearly (e.g. Look into the Pax6 Gene http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/05/evolution-is-evolution-science.html)

I would like to thank Swilkie for showing clearly how the Humanist Movement (which is religious) is involved in pushing their worldview in this issue.