It is a pity that the usual suspects in these jottings seem not to understand the difference between philolsophy and science and why science needs philosophy if the facts are to be interpreted correctly. As Brian Pollard points out, ID is a product of inductive reasoning following an identification of the scientific facts as at any time they can best be identified. Darwinism is also just such a product. What is needed is an open minded discussion of the merits and demerits of these two accounts of the facts and not the kneejerk "Darwin is science and ID is religion so there!" which has typified too many of the offerings in this debate. If ID is based upon solid scientific fact then what needs to be discussed is what ID makes of those facts - ie is ID reasonable and logical?

As it happens, I am a Darwinian.. I've lived here 49 years...
Fundamentalist NO.
I've had my share of overzealous dogmatists though who considered they should disregard my instructions that my children were NOT to attend religious instruction in a Darwin Primary School in 1976 but instead were to participate in enrichment reading in the library when their class were being brainwashed with dogma.
My view was that it was my duty to attend to their overall development and creationist teachings would seriously impair their capacity to think and reason.
I place ID pushers in the same category as drug pushers...They have no place in schools.
As one earlier posting noted, google the Wedge document and understand who the pushers are and what is their mission.

I am amazed by the number of "scientists" who appear to believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is a proven fact.

Even back in the sixties when I studied zoology at Sydney University, many scientists were willing to acknowledge that Darwin's theory has some gaping holes.

Darwin could explain why different variations of the same species can adapt better or worse to new conditions (ie "natural selection"), but he could not explain exactly how one species transforms into another. A big problem is the fact that something like 99% of mutations are harmful rather than helpful.

The current anti-ID hysteria is over the top. The solution is simple - schools should teach students about the theory of evolution, including the many things this theory cannot explain. Then all scientists would be happy, and pigs would fly (courtesy new mutations, occurring in exactly the right time sequence, entirely by chance).

Numbat- Simple cellular division v Sex?
Why change? Did not change, some organism’s still divide. Sex came after eons of change. This designer did put all these clues for us to follow in Earths development.
So obviously humans must be the pinnacle of the designers design then the previous attempts were wrong? Bad? Because we do have fossils, that the designer obviously left behind that show his previous designs. But they died out. Or did this designer wipe them out to start again? But this designer cannot be God because God is infallible? No mistakes allowed? Hmmm something to think about?

Realist – With technology today you assume we can prove everything today. Well you do not understand science since it never is that easy. But leave it to others who understand it a bit better.

Director123 I also amused at the irrational nonsense that those who champion 'ID' spout when their religion comes under attack. Especially after the Wedge letter? Explain that please?

But anyway to all the above I am willing to watch for the repeatable experiments that allows a theory to be tested and await the test on the presence of a designer? Was that a Christian God , Hindu, Or the old Norse ones? Also you must start funding SETI since aliens doing genetic engineering on this planet (Explains the gaps in evolution and complex designs in biology) is highly plausible. And enough technology and resources planet building would be possible.

So go search the cosmos. You must do this test on the designer unless you want to fall into the same trap you accuse the scientific community of blind faith in evolution.

My money STILL is on the aliens.

Do frogs turn into princes? In an instant that is a fairy story. Over millions of years that is evolution.

Evolution is the materialist’s way of explaining the world. But look at some of the holes in their story:
• What caused the big bang?
• How did the first living replicating cell assemble itself?
• How are new design instructions written to the DNA?
• Why is there not a finely graduated organic chain of transitional forms?
• How come every major body plan appeared suddenly in the “Cambrian Explosion”?

There are other ways of explaining the scientific evidence based on different worldviews.
I’m in favour of competition.
Evolutionists should not have a monopoly to promote their worldview.
They should have to defend their philosophy against other contenders.
It will be good for science, good for students and good for evolutions.

Firstly, the word “theory” does not always have the connotation of “hypothesis.” Another use of the word is to describe a “body of knowledge,” thus we can speak of quantum theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory, kinetic theory of gases, cell theory in biology etc. Evolution is one of the great unifying principles in biology, how else can you explain the universality of the genetic code?

ID by contrast is a sterile idea. Ok you ask how did the eye evolve? Or this or that complex biological mechanism? How did organic molecules start to replicate? There may be currently some gaps in knowledge in these and other matters. To-day’s biological thinking may have more than a hint at an answer. A mechanism for the evolution of the eye has been described by Professor Dawkins [Climbing Mount Improbable; chap5].

ID is a sterile theory: According to ID the designer designed the eye. How the designer works or planned his design is of course beyond human understanding. Who designed the designer is an irreligious question. I know of no empirical evidence that there is a great designer somewhere in the sky orchestrating the affairs of man on earth.

The following reported historical conversation says it all.
Napoleon 1: “You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.”
Pierre-Simon Laplace: “Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.”