quote:

So basically we need to refocus. ID is about showing design in the Universe, not showing the designer.

Ah, but design isn't always evidence of a designer. It could be, but it could also be a non-existent design that we think we see. In other words, the universe could be like a slice of toasted bread with a likeness of Elvis on it. If you look hard enough, you can see what looks like Elvis on the toast, but that doesn't mean that design of Elvis was intentionally put there. It's just a random pattern that looks, to our minds, like a intelligent design. I would say that the universe is the same way. It may look like it was designed, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was.

quote:

Evolution scientist will tell you that evolution is still proceeding, so with that in mind we should expect to see a continuation of increases in species.

Again, evolution does not require a constant increase of species. Evolution results in more advanced species (in that they are better adapted to their environment, as Kate said), not more.

quote:

God is in a spiritual dimension, not our dimension so he will seem different.

Stop escaping to the different dimension explanation. You know I'm not going to accept that any more than I will accept supposed design as evidence of a designer.

quote:

Okay, so are you admitting that micro evolution is not evidence for Macro evolution?

Indeed. Basic algebra isn't evidence of calculus. Algebra is just a base upon which calculus is built. Just so, micro-evolution isn't proof for macro-evolution, but it is a basis for macro-evolution.

quote:

Throw a bunch of sticks on the ground. Stare at it long enough and you can probably find some pattern.

Your right you threw them, making you the designer.
Okay let’s take a closer look at this point. First of all that is not an intricate, complex design. There are several aspects to things looking like they were designed, And that’s really what ID is all about trying to figure out whether it is plausible to say that the apparent design came about threw chance or whether it is really design.

As for the stick pattern, with the design that we are talking about it would be more accurate to say that the picture formed was a bunch of words forming the Gettysburg address

quote:

Not really. Only changing to meet the needs of the new invironment.

Well that is part of it but also things are supposed to evolve to higher levels of life. That is how evolution explains for the human race. Basically evolution says that man has reached a new level of evolution.

quote:

It all depends if the environment continues to change in the same manner as it was.

Yes if that is as far as the evolution has progressed. However I was talking about cases where you have two types of life, but the transitional link is missing. If the adaptations of the life are better then the predecessors and the subsequent forms of life are still present why did the transitional life died of. Shouldn’t the predecessor to the transitional life form die off first?

quote:

Oh dear, this isn't randomosity.... How did I get here? *runs away*

Don’t run away, you just got here.

quote:

Now if the universe was designed then there has to be a designer

Throw a bunch of sticks on the ground. Stare at it long enough and you can probably find some pattern. Doesn't mean God threw the sticks.

quote:

creatures are supposed to be always be changing for the better

Not really. Only changing to meet the needs of the new invironment.

quote:

predecessors die off not the transitional creatures.

It all depends if the environment continues to change in the same manner as it was. If the environment doesn't change in the same manner the creature was evloving than, clearly, the transitional creature will die off.

Oh dear, this isn't randomosity.... How did I get here? *runs away*

quote:

In other words, as far as I can tell, the only evidence, if it can be called such, for a designer is the so-called design of the universe.

I think that you are missing the point, the question is not is there a designer but is the universe designed. You see we can’t test for a designer but we can see if the universe has design. So then you are trying to figure out if everything happened by chance or by design.
Now if the universe was designed then there has to be a designer, because you can’t have intricate things designed without a designer.
So basically we need to refocus. ID is about showing design in the Universe, not showing the designer.

quote:

But evolution does not say that life types have to keep increasing.

Well has evolution stopped? Evolution scientist will tell you that evolution is still proceeding, so with that in mind we should expect to see a continuation of increases in species. However this is not what we see. Also the creatures are supposed to be always be changing for the better. Following that idea the transitional creatures should be better then their predecessors so the predecessors die of not the transitional creatures.

quote:

Okay, that's a bit Christian-centric, but no matter how you put it, it's just as unbelievable as a random universe.

Okay once again this comes back to you trying to thing of something that exists in another dimension as something of this dimension. God is in a spiritual dimension, not our dimension so he will seem different. But once again ID is not about the designer, it is about the design, a designer is inferred because of the design.

quote:

You do realize how silly this sounds to me, don't you?

It sounds silly to you because you have never been in the spiritual dimension, neither have I, the point is that we can say that God seems unbelievable, but we have to remember is that we have never experienced anything like god, so he will seem distant.

quote:

I didn't say that. I said micro-evolution is evidence for evolution,

Okay, so are you admitting that micro evolution is not evidence for Macro evolution?

quote:

Biochemistry. Miller-Urrey experiments, etc.

Okay and that is the every beginning followed by the development of life. That all actually falls under the theory of evolution in the theory’s broad meaning. Basically there are different meanings to the word evolution but what we are talking about on this thread is evolution as in the theory that explains the origin of life and the development of life.

As for the Miller-Urrey experiment, I wonder if you have done any research on that experiment. It happens that the experiment was from the start heavily controlled, and that actually recent research has shown that the environment that the earth would have had originally does not match the environment that they thought the earth had, and therefore used when they did the experiment. Incidentally the experiment does not work without the control or with the new environment, and defiantly does not work with both.

quote:

Just a theory...sort of like the theory of relativity.

I was using the word theory in a different way. That is why I also said speculation. Basically they have speculations about the ancestor, but they don’t have any actually links between the two.

quote:

It absolutely does in that it calls for a designer, a designer that cannot be scientifically tested for.

Again, let’s clarify. ID looks for design, and the theory of intelligent design says that there is design in the universe. Because of the presence of the design the designer is inferred. So basically they show that there is design and then the presence of design necessitates a designer.

quote:

Sure. Absolutely. But the effects of this "designer"? I still don't understand how complexity can be evidence for a designer.

Basically either the universe either came about by random chance or by design. What ID does is shows that the idea that everything came about by chance does not adequately explain the universe we life in and then goes to show evidence for design.

quote:

Okay so what do you use to explain the origin of life? if you notice that is what we are discussing on this thread.

Biochemistry. Miller-Urrey experiments, etc.

quote:

They say that it is the ancestor but that is just a theory, they have not actually established that link.

A theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

Just a theory...sort of like the theory of relativity.

quote:

ID does not defy the very nature of science, and there is evidence for ID.

It absolutely does in that it calls for a designer, a designer that cannot be scientifically tested for.

quote:

effects of something can be evidence of that thing.

Sure. Absolutely. But the effects of this "designer"? I still don't understand how complexity can be evidence for a designer.

quote:

How many times am I going to have to say this? There is evidence for a designer. I have spent hours of my spare time reading some of the books by ID scientists and looking at the evidence, so don’t tell me there is no evidence because I know there is evidence.

This reminds me of an episode of Scrubs. "When you hear hoofbeats, go ahead and think horse, not zebra." In other words, as far as I can tell, the only evidence, if it can be called such, for a designer is the so-called design of the universe. However, since it's far more likely (due to the extreme complexity of a being powerful enough to create the universe) that the design is just coincidental, I don't really consider that evidence at all.

quote:

You can’t go from one type of life to the diversity that we have today without there being an increases in species, so evolution does say that the number of species does increase.

But evolution does not say that life types have to keep increasing. It just says they did. Evolution isn't a linear thing. I'd say it's more of a lop-sided parabola. Started out at one, exploded into a huge amount, and slowly started decreasing as inferior life types died out to make way for more complex types.

quote:

You believe that the entire universe formed completely randomly and just happened to turn out so that life was possible on earth. Then life just happened to form and from that one simple type of life all life that we have today formed. That is unbelievable.

Touché. On the other hand, your explanation involves an all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present deity deciding, on a whim, to create the whole of existence and populate it with exactly one habitable planet filled with some of the oddest forms of life (platypus, anyone?) and a species of animal smart enough to discover the secrets of the universe which instead decides to worship (or hate) this all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present deity who just so happens to like being worshiped.

Okay, that's a bit Christian-centric, but no matter how you put it, it's just as unbelievable as a random universe. Also, the idea of a random universe is just as plausible as the idea of God, so don't tell me it's inherently unbelievable. You may not believe it, but I don't believe in your God, either, so we're square.

quote:

God does not have a beginning. Again this an entirely different dimension so it will seem hard to comprehend. I don’t really understand how eternity works.

You do realize how silly this sounds to me, don't you? I mean, I can respect thinking like that, but you really can't expect me to believe it.

quote:

And micro evolution is not evidence for macro evolution.

I didn't say that. I said micro-evolution is evidence for evolution, in that evolution is, fundamentally, the process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage. Micro-evolution is just that.

quote:

Being a so-called "origin science" does not mean that evolution must explain the origin of life on earth.

Okay so what do you use to explain the origin of life? if you notice that is what we are discussing on this thread.

quote:

So, it's only legit if an anti-evolutionist disproves irreducible complexity.

Not necessarily, the facts that they site is relevant, but their opinions’ are just that their opinions, and how they thing dictate what their opinions’ are.

quote:

And what are you suggesting we do? Fill in the gaps with a "designer"?

No but we should go with the theory that fits best. ID legitimately fits the holes in question.

quote:

A machine is not a living thing. Irrelevant.

Ever heard of an analogy? I was using that point to illustrate how the logic used was wrong.

quote:

Fine. Ignore the fact that most scientists believe that the flagellum is the common ancestor of all type III secretion systems.

They say that it is the ancestor but that is just a theory, they have not actually established that link. Basically they are saying that this is how it might have happened, but it is still speculation, and not yet established.

quote:

Maybe because evolution is GOOD and REAL science. SCientists require evidence. There is evidence for evolution.

Yes there is evidence for evolution, and there is also evidence for ID. You probably haven’t seen any of the evidence for ID because the schools only provide evidence for evolution, and only mention other theory’s if they are citing why those theories are wrong. So the information that is provided is very one sided, and you have to go of and do your own reading if you want to see evidence for ID.

quote:

I highly doubt that. People see through ID as a pseudo-science. It defies the very nature of science. There is no evidence supporting it.

There you go again with your false statements. Stop the rhetoric and actually get your facts strait. ID is not pseudo-science, ID does not defy the very nature of science, and there is evidence for ID. You can disagree with the theory of evolution, but I would suggest that you stop making statements that are false. Making false statements does nothing for you and if anything it hurts your position. Go to the links that I have provided and look at some of the books. ID does have legitimate scientists that support the theory and they do have legitimate evidence.

quote:

You're not aware that Ken Miller is a particularly religious scientist.

Actually I'm pretty sure that that line was a quote from another scientist that happens to be an atheist. He quotes other people several times in the paper.
As for the main author he is a theist but he is also adamantly opposed to creationism and ID.

quote:

Have I even read it? Wow. No, I have not. I know the basic premise and I also know that Behe failed to adequately defend and explain his theory as an expert witness in court.

So you are dismissing something that you have not even looked at. I believe in ID but I have looked at the information put out by the creationists, and the evolutionists. You don’t have to do a detail study of each group but it would probably be good to look at what the other groups have to before you just dismiss them as false.

Just because the court did not side with the ID movement does not mean that Behe's arguments were wrong.

quote:

Complexity does not proof a designer.

Are the effects of something not evidence for that thing? You seam to think that it is not, but in that case let’s look at gravity. You can’t see gravity but we know information on gravity by seeing what effects it has. So yes the effects of something can be evidence of that thing. Design does make a belief in a designer legitimate, just as the fact that rocks fall is evidence for gravity.

quote:

don't talk to me about bias ever again.

The sources I sited do have a bias. So do your sources my point was we need to keep that in mind. The bias effects opinion more then it does the actual information.

quote:

A machine is not a living thing. Irrelevant.

Well did you actually read that section to see what they had to say or did you just take one look at that title and decide that it was wrong?

quote:

There is no evidence for a designer

How many times am I going to have to say this? There is evidence for a designer. I have spent hours of my spare time reading some of the books by ID scientists and looking at the evidence, so don’t tell me there is no evidence because I know there is evidence. the reason that you don’t see the evidence is that the only evidence they provide for a theory in school is for evolution, and if you want to get evidence for other theory’s you have to do your own research. Even if you don’t read most of it, go to the links that I have provided and look at their papers and books just so you can see that there really is evidence for ID.

quote:

You'll need to show how better life types, so to speak, require more life types since I don't quite see how that connection exists.

Okay let me clarify evolution states that we started with one life form, a common ancestor. From that one form of life all life has evolved. So yes the theory of evolution does call for an increase of species. You can’t go from one type of life to the diversity that we have today without there being an increases in species, so evolution does say that the number of species does increase.

quote:

It may to you, but you seem to be a bit more accepting of unbelievable things than I am.

Well first of all I’m not the only one who believes in the unbelievable. You believe that the entire universe formed completely randomly and just happened to turn out so that life was possible on earth. Then life just happened to form and from that one simple type of life all life that we have today formed. That is unbelievable. As for God, he may be different but the idea of God is completely plausible. So you may chose to not believe in him but that does not mean that he is inherently unbelievable. Remember we are talking about an entirely different dimension. So God will seam hard to understand.
Also ID does not necessarily call for the Christian God. All ID calls for is a designer. This is why many deists follow ID. There is no specification of the designer, and no necessity of religion.

quote:

Everything has a beginning. You can't just say "God has always been" because I'm obviously not going to believe that without any evidence.

God does not have a beginning. Again this an entirely different dimension so it will seem hard to comprehend. I don’t really understand how eternity works.

quote:

Also, about that Hugh Ross link...the first thing I saw is a headline saying "Evidence that Humans are Evolving is Not Evidence for Human Evolution." Um, yeah. Blatant contradictions make things a little hard to swallow. Micro-evolution is still evolution.

That’s not a contradiction. They are saying that the fact that humans change in size, color, and the like is not evidence that we evolved from another type of life. And micro evolution is not evidence for macro evolution. I can expand further into detail if you like but basically research in the area of genetics has shown that micro evolution does not prove macro evolution.

quote:

Furthermore, there is no real evidence on that site.

There is evidence, and the evidence they provided is no more guess work then what the evolutionists put out. And yes they don’t have there best stuff there, I would suggest checking a library and seeing if they have any of Michal Behe's of Hugh Ross’s writings.

quote:

But there are several major problems with the theory of evolution that can not be explained. Evolution does not fit the facts as well as the theory of intelligent design.

Evolution does not fit the facts because the facts themselves are incomplete. It doesn't make things up to explain the holes, which I would say ID does. There is no evidence for a designer, other than the so-called obviousness, which is akin to assuming unicorns exist because you found some hoofprints. The universe is not evidence of a designer. It could be, but it could also be evidence of, well, nothing at all.

quote:

The theory of evolution actually says just the opposite, there is no end to evolution, as life continually attempts to move to higher levels.

Higher levels does not always mean more life types. In fact, the more advanced a species becomes, the more likely it is to overcome less advanced species. Humans are evidence of that. Look at the number of animal species we've directly or indirectly caused to go extinct. Dodos and passenger pigeons come to mind.

You'll need to show how better life types, so to speak, require more life types since I don't quite see how that connection exists.

quote:

This does not necessitate a designer, but it does mean that it would make sense for there to be a designer.

If I must say it again, I will: I'm not denying that there's a possibility of a designer. But there's a possibility for anything. The very idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing being who just up and decided to create all of existence because he was bored does not make sense. First, you have to wonder where the designer came from. Then you have to wonder why he bothered to create all of existence. Indeed, it's possible there is one, but I'm not going to accept that without proof, because the very idea doesn't make much sense to me. It may to you, but you seem to be a bit more accepting of unbelievable things than I am.

quote:

So you don’t have to believe in the spontaneous creation of a God, because God has always been.

Everything has a beginning. You can't just say "God has always been" because I'm obviously not going to believe that without any evidence.

Also, about that Hugh Ross link...the first thing I saw is a headline saying "Evidence that Humans are Evolving is Not Evidence for Human Evolution." Um, yeah. Blatant contradictions make things a little hard to swallow. Micro-evolution is still evolution.

Furthermore, there is no real evidence on that site. I looked. It's all about how life is apparently too fine-tuned to be random. That's not evidence; that's guesswork. I honestly can't find any scientific evidence (that is, the kind backed up by experiments, accredited scientific institutions, or hard proof). Of course, it could be because I have to register to view most of the stuff, which I really don't want to do. I've got enough spam in my inbox without pseudo-scientific think tanks adding to it.

quote:

And by the way that is still origins science because of the common ancestor aspect.

Being a so-called "origin science" does not mean that evolution must explain the origin of life on earth. Look up evolution in a dictionary. It's all about the change over time.

quote:

First observation. Extremely biased. Basically it is the evolutionist’s claming they win. Well what do you think they are going to say?

So, it's only legit if an anti-evolutionist disproves irreducible complexity. Yeah. That's great.

quote:

Now they are basically appealing to the well we might find the evidence in the future so the point still stands. Well by that logic I could say that God will come to earth sometime in the future and answer all your questions and until then you should just believe everything that he says.

And what are you suggesting we do? Fill in the gaps with a "designer"? Science is an ever-evolving discipline. It is impossible to know everything right now or. Just because we can't answer a question doesn't mean we should write it off.

quote:

No it is not. I can have a machine that needs all of its parts to work. And then those parts can also have to be complete to work. Take a computer. You can have a machine that has several necessary parts and those parts are also complex.

A machine is not a living thing. Irrelevant.

quote:

That entire point depends upon the complete connection between TTSS and the flagellum. Because this link as not actually been established this point does not stand.

Fine. Ignore the fact that most scientists believe that the flagellum is the common ancestor of all type III secretion systems.

quote:

Maybe you should consider that many in the scientific community are evolutionists.

Maybe because evolution is GOOD and REAL science. SCientists require evidence. There is evidence for evolution.

quote:

If they actually taught alternate theories in school there would be a more balanced ratio of scientist.

I highly doubt that. People see through ID as a pseudo-science. It defies the very nature of science. There is no evidence supporting it.

quote:

Says the atheistic scientist that hates the theory of intelligent design and does everything possible to discredit it. You can tell from the nature of this paper that the author is more concerned with attacking ID then looking at the information and so such phrases don’t actually mean anything.

OMG. Are you serious? You're not aware that Ken Miller is a particularly religious scientist. He has traveled the country talking about how religon and science are compatible. He is far from being an atheist.

quote:

Also have you even read Darwin’s black box?

Have I even read it? Wow. No, I have not. I know the basic premise and I also know that Behe failed to adequately defend and explain his theory as an expert witness in court.

Even if the flagellum was an irreducibly complex structure, that wouldnot provide evidence for a designer. Where is this designer? Show me this designer? It would just indicate that living things are complex and detailed. Complexity does not proof a designer.

quote:

Here’s some of it.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtm...sign_in_the_universe

My god, don't talk to me about bias ever again.

All of that "evidence" requires huge and non-scientific inferences.

For example...

quote:

New insights into the physics of the Moon’s origin establish more evidence for Earth’s supernatural design so that it can support life.

How could anyone make such an assumption?

quote:

Darwin's theory of evolution:
1. Organisms have changed over time.
2. Common descent.
3. Species have multiplied over time.
4. Evolutionary change is gradual.
5. Natural Selection.

The theory of evolution today is not the same as Darwin’s theory of evolution it has changed. Also Darwin spent most of his time studying micro evolution and generating theories from that.

And by the way that is still origins science because of the common ancestor aspect.

quote:

Ken Miller. Prof at Brown.

Comments as I read

quote:

Almost from the moment The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the opponents of evolution have fought a long, losing battle against their Darwinian foes. Today, like a prizefighter in the late rounds losing badly on points,

First observation. Extremely biased. Basically it is the evolutionist’s claming they win. Well what do you think they are going to say?

quote:

The lack of a detailed current explanation for a structure, organ, or process does not mean that science will never come up with one.

Now they are basically appealing to the well we might find the evidence in the future so the point still stands. Well by that logic I could say that God will come to earth sometime in the future and answer all your questions and until then you should just believe everything that he says.

quote:

As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional.

This argument is basically based around the assumption that these forms of life are really the ancestor of the life form in question. They may be able to show that they are closely related but are they actually ancestral?

quote:

Unfortunately for this line of argument, the claim that one irreducibly-complex system might contain another is self-contradictory.

No it is not. I can have a machine that needs all of its parts to work. And then those parts can also have to be complete to work. Take a computer. You can have a machine that has several necessary parts and those parts are also complex.

quote:

More importantly, Dembski's willingness to ignore the TTSS lays bare the underlying assumption of his entire approach towards the calculation of probabilities and the detection of "design."

That entire point depends upon the complete connection between TTSS and the flagellum. Because this link as not actually been established this point does not stand.

quote:

It is no secret that concepts like "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design" have failed to take the scientific community by storm

No really? I did not know that. Maybe you should consider that many in the scientific community are evolutionists. Why because that’s what they were taught in school. If they actually taught alternate theories in school there would be a more balanced ratio of scientist.

quote:

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

Says the atheistic scientist that hates the theory of intelligent design and does everything possible to discredit it. You can tell from the nature of this paper that the author is more concerned with attacking ID then looking at the information and so such phrases don’t actually mean anything.

End conclusion extremely biased, probably one of the most blatantly biased sources I have seen in a long time. It is aggressively anti intelligent design and dismisses many things without solid criticism.

Also have you even read Darwin’s black box?

quote:

Ahh yes.... good ole Hugh Ross.

Here’s Hugh Ross’ credentials.
http://www.reasons.org/about/staff/ross.shtml

quote:

I'm still confused. Where is the testable evidence for a designer?

Here’s some of it.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtm...sign_in_the_universe

Also I have already listed many books that you could read to get some evidence.

Darwin's theory of evolution:
1. Organisms have changed over time.
2. Common descent.
3. Species have multiplied over time.
4. Evolutionary change is gradual.
5. Natural Selection.

quote:

Once again that is an incorrect statement. Behe's theory has far from been proven wrong, and if anything it has been continually strengthened by new evidence.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Ken Miller. Prof at Brown. He proved Behe wrong. During the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, Behe was unable to defend his "theory." He kept changing his argument. Looked like a complete fool.

quote:

And a third false statement. Really you need to do some research and not just make sweeping statements against ID that really have no basses.

What do you make of the simple fact that overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not support this so-called "theory." They, the scientific experts, do not consider it to be scientific. They do not believe that it is testable. They do not think that the "research" "supporting" it is legit. Does that mean nothing to you?

quote:

Ever heard of Hugh Ross?

Ahh yes.... good ole Hugh Ross. He's one of those people that uses the chance argument. Well, that can't be tested either. It's just not good or real, for that matter, science.

I'm still confused. Where is the testable evidence for a designer?

quote:

Which is why I believe in evolution.

But there are several major problems with the theory of evolution that can not be explained. Evolution does not fit the facts as well as the theory of intelligent design.

quote:

That diversity appeared very early on in Earth's history. It hasn't been continually expanding.

I agree completely. What you just described is what the theory of intelligent design says. The theory of evolution actually says just the opposite, there is no end to evolution, as life continually attempts to move to higher levels.

quote:

Nothing in evolution calls for continually increasing life types, at least, not as far as I know.

Well evolution does call for the increase of species. You can’t expand and have newer and better types of life without increasing species.

quote:

It expanded quickly early on and now is going back down.

Also one other point. Why would there be a sudden large increase in species, followed by a decrease?

quote:

Where? Everyone says this, but no one can actually provide any useful or meaningful evidence.

Here’s one site that has a lot of information.
http://www.reasons.org/
It may seem that there is no evidence for intelligent design, but that is because intelligent design is not taught in schools or colleges, so you have to do independent research to find evidence for theory’s like ID.

quote:

I believe what I find makes the most sense. A designer doesn't, ergo I believe in evolution.

What do you mean a designer does not make sense? Design points to a designer. This does not necessitate a designer, but it does mean that it would make sense for there to be a designer.

quote:

I can either accept the spontaneous creation of an omnipotent designer or the spontaneous creation of life.

The designer has always been you can’t create God, because nothing is bigger then God. So you don’t have to believe in the spontaneous creation of a God, because God has always been.

quote:

You debate well Nephilem!

Thanks.

quote:

Actually, that's completely wrong. The theory of evolution does notseek to explain the origin of life. It simply explains how organisms changed over time.

That really depends on what you mean by the theory of evolution. What I'm talking about is when the theory states that life arose spontaneously and then all life evolved from that common ancestor. That is what I am talking about and that is origins science.

quote:

he only prominent scientist that attempted to support ID with legit science is Micheal Behe.

Actually that is an incorrect statement. Here’s a link to a list of a few of the scientists supporting ID. http://www.reasons.org/about/biographies.shtml
Ever heard of Hugh Ross?

quote:

His theory of irreducible complexity was proven wrong.

Once again that is an incorrect statement. Behe's theory has far from been proven wrong, and if anything it has been continually strengthened by new evidence.

quote:

There is no scientific evidence supporting ID.

And a third false statement. Really you need to do some research and not just make sweeping statements against ID that really have no basses.

quote:

What evidence? SHow me the evidence for a "designer."

Go to the site, read some of the work by Ross, Behe, and try to look at what the intelligent design movement has to say without automatically dismissing it as false without thinking about it.