ID is typical 'god of the gaps' theology (see http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html&ei=20gYQ8LtFr-aYICr4OYJ or for a laugh, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/gaps.html&ei=20gYQ8LtFr-aYICr4OYJ). As Pericles pointed out, all IDers ever do is point out what evolutionary theory and science has not yet explained, and say 'god did it' or the classic 'then a miracle occurs' (see the cartoon: http://downtownlad.blogspot.com/2005/08/and-then-miracle-occurs.html).

Every body is suggesting from the tone of the postings I am reading that ID is falling into the “religious studies” or equivalent. But here is a twist, which ID proponents must deal with. (This is pretty wacko idea, hell, maybe not, but you never know?) If ID is to start to be presented in schools then they will have to not only present arguments for, and the mechanism of ID but start questioning the “intelligence” behind it. That falls into the mechanisms doesn’t it?

Now lets run through some “possibilities” behind ID.
God,
Aliens,
Humans from the future,
Others?

Do the ID proponents from the religious background really want to start questioning the existence of aliens, time travel or God? And could one be more likely than another?

Some of us, the Pastafarians, believe that children should be taught of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who made the universe and all within it many years ago, and who ever since has been guiding us with the aid of His Noodly Appendage.

Those yet to be enlightened by His teachings can read more about FSM'ism at our website http://www.venganza.org/.

I'm sure the understanding proponents of ID will agree that in the interests of giving children a balanced perspective on the subject of our existence that all three of Evolution, ID, and FSM'ism should be given equal time in our childrens science class rooms.

HarryC, I don't actually think the IDers would take issue with your Flying Spaghetti Monster, since they do not seek to describe the nature of the designer. Their (mistaken) point is only that it was designed – speculating about the type of designer is irrelevant.

It’s also a shame that you’ve bundled global warming in there, since there is a great deal of scientific evidence supporting human-caused global warming (unlike ID)– the two topics don’t really compare at all.

Philo asks what understanding evolution has done for him. Well if Philo is neither ill nor eats, then probably very little.

Humans have been taking advantage of evolution since we moved from hunter/gatherer to agriculture as a means of survival. It was then that humans really began a series of discoveries that have (for better or worse) brought us to our present knowledge of vaccines, genetic engineering, medicines, crops, ecology - to name a few.

Perhaps Philo should go back to secondary level science - I recall studying the fruit fly - one of the easiest creatures in which to observe evolution at work in a short amount of time. Perhaps then he will understand how creatures evolved here in Australia - completely unique to the rest of the world. Or, alternatively he could study animal life on Galapagos - the adaptations of finches are particularly fascinating.

Without this knowledge we would not have developed anti-biotics, cures for many genetic disorders or even drought resistant crops. None of this knowledge is finite nor perfect that is what makes it so exciting - scientific knowledge continues to evolve as well.

All ID does is attempt to fill in the gaps that science has yet to answer - and in time, no doubt science will answer these questions. As a subject ID would hardly stand up at a tertiary level - along with other faith based systems it should be taught at a primary level as a part of religious studies.

Although I am not a fan of secular moral relativism, nor do I care much for a theory of existence ultimately based on Biblical stories.

Christian scientists clearly lose all sensibilitiy when defending the faith.

While I do not think we should do without God in our society we can sure do without theories cobbled together by extremists to save face for a religion which has been primarily man made