[island_dude]

I have bee following the dover trial since the begining. There is a pattern that became evident from the beginning. The ID folks claim that the big science bullies won't let them into the club. So they are forced to appeal to the public at large. The problem is that when you give the ID supporters the opportunity to have a forum and critically examine the arguments they make it seems to always come down to the same thing. They propose a supposed "gap" in the ability of evolutionary theory to explain something (e.g. flegelum). Since there is this "gap" then evolution is wrong and it must be that there is a designer.

Ok, what mechanism is used for design by the creator? we ask. Dr. Behe himself then says with a straight face the ID doesn't describe a mechanism. This is nonsense. They keep using the same tired and refuted examples to try and trash the evolutionary explaination without providing any testable mechanism of their own. The have even less credibility since you can never get the proponents of the movement to give firm description of what ID is. The refuse to be pinned down. They make no attempt to design experiment to prove their assertions, and they redefine the term science to include that para-normal.

A lot of the public falls for this game because all of these arguments are delivered in explanations that use a lot of "science" jargon. The ID proponents have a pretty bad ethical record too. They are quite content to actually lie to promote what has to be a thinly desguised attempt to promote a particular Christian view.

Another thing that drives me crazy about the ID and creationist folks is that they totaly mis-represent what the claims of evolution are. They always talk about the big bang theory and the origin of life. Evolution doesn't go there. The only tenants of religious fath that it contradicts are very literal reading of creation. Of course there are two biblical creation accounts that in many ways contradict each other. The only people insulted by this theory are these biblical literalists. I don't know how they can maintain a literalist view and reconcile two competing stories of creation.

I really wish the followers of these faths would attempt to consider this. Scientists are not out to destroy God.
Dismount soapbox.