A thing about ID is that IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE IDEAS OF NATURAL SELECTION? It does not exclude the ability for organisms to adapt? It does not exclude the idea that genes / DNA / chromosomes can mutate?

However one thing it does exclude is the evolution of many sections of every living organism where multiple stepped cyclic operations are required to be there all at once. You miss one or two steps in the cycle and the organism cannot survive.

Protein production and DNA replication rely upon each other however the ability for them to co-evolove is a load of rubbish. The KREBS cycle (Citric Acid Cycle) works in a cycle and with steps missing the whole idea of your cells being able to produce life giving energy is impossible. In other words multiple steps would of needed to evloved all at once. The actual probability of this is about as likely as a twister ripping through a garbage tip and assembling a fully working Ford. It's just not going to happen.

As a scientist I must state that to rule out ID as a possibility in comparison to evolution as a possibility seems like foolishness to me.

1212,
Well said!

Pericles - you ain't Robinson Crusoe, mate :)

And further, my only problem with 1212's view is that it is entirely teleological. As such it is ultimately of no greater value than any other faith-based perspective.

We should also remember that 'evolution' simply means change over time, about which I think that most of us agree that it occurs, except perhaps for extreme Creationists. It seems that Darwinian natural selection has been able to be accommodated within the interesting worldview of ID proponents.

From an agnostic point of view, god only knows why s/he/it would therefore have created such evolutionary 'advantages' as all the phylogenic dead ends and extinctions, not to mention the perverse new pandemics about which we are supposed to be very concerned (indeed, as a responsible citizen I ensure that my chooks are separated from the ducks, so to speak).

Obviously there's a great deal of interest in ID as a philosphical idea, which may provide grounds for its inclusion in, say, a high school humanities/social sciences strand.

But it certainly ain't 'hard' science, and in no way deserves the intellectual imprimatur of inclusion in Science subjects. It's ironic that this year is the centenary of Einstein's "miraculous" year.

Now I'd worship whoever it was that designed him...

Hey 1212
ID is:
1) Dogmatic.
2) Possesses fixed ideas.
3) Has no peer review.
4) Sees all criticism as a conspiracy against it.
5) Presents mainly egotistical benefits to its followers
6) Does NOT use Occam's Razor.
7) Posseses an inability to predict.

Explain how all that adds up to science? The truth is that ID is merely a bunch of criticisms of the theory of evolution, a philosophical proposition (ie Irreducable complexity) & special pleading. NOTHING more! Criticisms, philosophical propositions & special pleading do NOT a scientific theory make.
Finaly about your argument that oposition to ID is oposition to religion. Why would opposition to ID equal opposition to religion when many scientists who oppose ID are also believers in God? How can believers be opposed to religion?

Bosk,
I can recognise from posts here that atheistic evolution is:
1) Dogmatic.
2) Possesses fixed ideas.
3) .
4) Sees all criticism as a conspiracy against it.
5) Presents mainly egotistical benefits to its followers
6).
7) Posseses an inability to predict.

Explain how all that adds up to science