spongebob wrote:This has probably already been stated, but one thing that is interesting about the ID movement is that it is equally incompatible with science and Christianity. ID proponents have resisted labeling their designer by name because of the legal implications regarding education, but it's a thin veil they wield. And yet, their designer is supposedly responsible for "fine tuning" the universe from the very moment of the big bang to make organic life possible and so that humans would eventually emerge. But evolution is refuted by IDer's because eyes and blood can't evolve, so they say. So, we have a group of geniuses saying in one breath that a "designer" fixed the universe to allow humans to emerge, not that it created the universe 6,000 years ago, and that humans were designed, not evolved. Isn't that a tad contradictory? Just what would be the point of designing the universe at a sub-atomic level so that stars and planets could form and allow for life to form and humans to evolve when you're just going to specially design humans anyway?
Since I'm back in commission 'til Advent, I thought I'd weigh in here.
You need to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush. ID is a very broad movement, and includes creationists and evolutionists, and everything in between. Individual proponents tend to be pretty consistent, while you'd need to find the lowest common denominator to say things about all of them.
For myself, I am most convinced by the ID theory of front-loaded evolution. That is, life at its origin was seeded with some long term evolutionary planning. This gets around problems with evolution not being able to come up with complex systems piecemeal on pure chance and incremental advantage. I'm reading a fascinating book on the topic "The Design Matrix" by Mike Gene
So to sum up - IDers are not necessarily saying that things like the eye and the blood can't evolve, but that they couldn't evolve without some sort of architectural planning. Put in the planning - the design, if you will - and they can evolve quite nicely.
And it really is plausible. Think for a moment - something like 30% of our genome we share with baker's yeast. The last common ancestor we had with baker's yeast was pretty darn long ago. That means that that huge portion of the genome has been there, able to work, able to influence things, without changing.