Trinity,
Your arrogance and emotion is evident with statements like:

"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."

I can probably claim the use of genetic breeding and food production more than youself; I having been involved in agricultural research and dairy breeding. My use of selective line breeding and knocking out certain genes in vegetables and introducing other genes did not come from my knowledge of a theory of evolution but by intelligently applying changes in selective genes. We only worked with genes already in existence we did not introduce new genes. Evolution has not answered how new genes have entered the upward development of more complex species. Why each select species aligns only itself with their own species.

Will humans grow wings by cross breeding with birds, or four legs like horses as ancient mythology envisaged. The problem is we are likley to end up with bird brains, or can only breed stallions. Of course all this could happen in evolution without intelligence being applied. That the eye of an eagle developed from genes of an omeba without intelligent design is nonsense.

Intelligent design has, I believe, little if any scientific evidence.Above all who created the intelligent designer? As far as I can make out from my somewhat scanty knowledge of physics everything in the universe including life is governed by the laws of quantum physics where there is no room for an original designer.Chaos theory shows that complexity can arise from simplicity.However all this refers to the physical universe. But there is an equally important human universe ( i.e. relations between humans and the self) and here religious ideas may have an important place.So I.D.;creationism and various religious ideas should be taught in the social not the physical sciences.In other words God is in your mind not in the physical universe but that does not make him or her any less important.Any comments?

greg_m, that's not actually my site, or one that I have had any input in. If you didn't already realise that was a letter a concerned physics graduate had sent to the Kansas education board who are debating a move to introduce ID into their schools. I do agree with his argument though and might very well enter "Pastafarian" as my religion at the next census.

Whether evolution has or hasn't happened should be a no brainer. Consider that humans have a coccyx bone sticking out at the end of the spine, if that's not the remnants of a tail then what else? Dark skinned people evolved in climates where the sun is strong and pale skins where the opposite is true (obviously skin cancer isn't conjusive to survival). Fossils, the appendix, walking fish, animal breeds...

Another point, if an intelligent designer is responible for it all then why on earth did he create so many UNINTELLIGENT designs? Why are there human genes that promote breast cancer, sperm that has to be produced externally because it can't tolerate body temperature, eyes that don't always work (often used as an example of an ID), animals too large to feed themselves.

ID's are clutching at straws, with overwhelming evidence against their preferred theory (God made it all a few thousand years ago) they've had to compromise to something less fanciful but still not supported by the evidence.

Sorry to disappoint you Boaz, but "irreducible complexity" is not evidence, it is simply a manufactured, self-actualizing theory with no proof possible. The entire argument is tautological, a linguistic conjuring trick. A clever one, I grant you, but a trick nevertheless.

Incidentally, Professor Sternberg was properly excoriated for passing off his essay as having some form of scientific basis, when it was no more than a simple re-hash of the "God of the Gaps" argument, which has been discredited by any number of sane and sober scientists.

You will have to stop reading Sartre, you know, he's having a bad impact on you. You have quoted that single Sartre line about "since god doesn't exist, everything is morally possible" so many times now, it is becoming predictable.

Sartre was fairly confident in his atheism, and did propose that the concept of God was a limiting factor to man's imagination and rational thought processes. But I suggest that he is more commonly associated with the idea that man has created God in order to provide some form of meaning to life. Exactly, in fact, what the Intelligent Design proponents are trying to achieve.

Pericles, u've heard the saying "When your on a good thing, stick to it" I repeatedly use the 'phrase' because it is educational to the ignorant mind to be exposed to the logical ramifications of a 'no God' view of life. We've been down this path before in our 'Absolute Truth' encounter, so I won't revisit it.

ID. The idea that we can 'exclude' a specific possibility before we begin to examine evidence is not objective. When faced with certain otherwise unexplainable phenomena, it is justified to explore any possibility. Further information may come to exclude such, but in the meantime it is as valid as any other.

It might seem a tenuous connection, but the idea of Creation by the Almighty, is supported by one of the most well attested events of history, being of course the resurrection of Christ, and the conversion of Paul.

When faced with observable phenomena, such as irreducable complexity, and the abovementioned events, it is not unreasonable to suggest "God". But to be honest, I'm persuing this line only to remain faithful to the articles point, I don't think many people will be brought to humble themselves at the foot of the cross just because of ID. I find the resurrection and Pauls conversion, quite adequate themselves.

Like any interdisciplinary subject in university, ID would be critically examined and pulled apart to reveal its philosophical and epistemological platforms. I for one don't think it would last more than two lectures as a stand alone science - [before its revealed as a back door to fundamentalist Christianity??] So I have no problems with studying a fundamentalist Christian scientology. I know my devil worshiping mates would love it.