Regardless of all the silly posturings of ID pushers. The only issue is their predetory motivation to brainwash children to bring our children under their control. Intelligent design is an excuse for child abuse nothing else.

The standard of debate in here is woeful. Oligarch, if you want to be taken at all seriously I suggest you start learning a bit about evolutionary genetics. And also start thinking at least a little critcally about what Dembski actually said.

A few points I guess i have to clear up:
1) Evolutonary biologist do not refer to themselves as Darwinists, in the same manner that physicists do not refer to themselves as Newtonians or Einsteinians. Darwin had come across an explanation of evolution that has proved useful, but the state of the science has progressed far beyond what he said about evolution.

2) The term "specified information" is also not generally used by biologists, since the term is mainly used by ID arguers.

3) There are at least several mechanisms by which a net increase in genetic information can occur with in an organism.
-One is genome duplication. In plants, it's called polyploidy eg. wheat. Modern wheat has been bred to be polyploid and would be classed as a different species from wild wheat by any definition of species and is grossly morphologically different from its ancestor.
-Another is chromosomal translocation, in humans they can cause disorders, but in other organisms they can increase the genome size.
-Yet another is retroviruses which splice their DNA into cells of the host.
-And further still we have commensal or symbyotic organisms, cellular organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts (in plants) are basically separate bacterial type organisms which have been engulfed and co-opted by eukaryotic cells. They even have their own genome and divide separately to the cell as a whole.

There are some others that are currently being investigated, but you get the idea. All of these have been observed in nature and the laboratory. Now you can shut up about it.
cont...

That Dembski article states the conditions (as do you) about ID being falsifiable. It is falsifiable, because it has already been falsified. The flagellum that you and Dembski and Behe seem so fond of has been shown to be homologous to a Type III secretory system, which contains fewer genes than the flagellum and is likely an ancestral form. ID arguers of course think that it is just a reduction of the flagellum or separate to it, but the fact remains that the flagellum system will work if some of the protiens are removed, as a secretory system, not a motile one. That is, it is not irreducibly complex the proteins can function in other ways. Try a new example, that one is going downhill fast.

Lastly, Dembski has a double standard in that he criticises evolution for not predicting anything (not true BTW), but then lets ID off the same hook of prediction by saying that it would be a "category error". I think that the category error was mistaking ID for scince in the first place!

Bugsy ID is not about science it is about the politics of power. ID pushers want to get control over our childrens minds. They are not interested in natural processes, they are interested in self gratification.

I agree with you, however some people actually believe the stuff IDers peddle and it is necessary to encourage them to learn for themselves what a wank it is.

Ummm I don’t think I can add anymore than I already have, but I think I know where some can get help from;
To explain some traits at least.

Dr Pat Santy;
http://www2.blogger.com/profile/05490927712024477670

This is her profile, you will need to enter the: “Blog entry” to find out more.
“Cover all bases”; as they say.