Do you believe in Darwins theory of evlution or do you believe in the bibcal cre

[shernajwine]

There within lies the problem- foundation of reasoning.

I can say the same for scientific research with a materialistic agenda. If the foundation of the research has an a priori commitment to materialistic views only then the result is not an honest result. The results are predetermined based on the researchers world view. So your reason for dismissing any source from pro ID and creation sites can be our reason to dismiss any sources you provide. Only thing is, I haven't seen anyone do that, and I know I haven't. So your foundation for reasoning is to automatically dismiss what you have already determined is false, no matter what legitimate science is brought to the table to show otherwise. That sounds intellectually dishonest to me.


You might be a fundamentalist atheist if......
When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd
http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html

[Falconer02]

Materialistic agenda? I'm confused. Do you mean explaining things in a rational perspective with empirical data to back it up?

So your foundation for reasoning is to automatically dismiss what you have already determined is false, no matter what legitimate science is brought to the table to show otherwise. That sounds intellectually dishonest to me.

That's a major cop-out though and is grounds for the letting loose of any irrational crackpot idea. There's nothing wrong with that just as long as it can be worked with someway somehow. There is no science that has brought anything metaphysical to the table though, and that's why ID will never be accepted into the scientific community-- there's nothing to work with. That's really all there is to this argument.

But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd

A key word here is evidence. Scientific concepts and models have the freedom to collapse and change depending on what is discovered. Creationist science is bound by a one-way street incapable of change. It can only 'change' through interpretation to meet the specifications of new-found evidence which, imo, is intellectually dishonest.

[shernajwine]

Do you mean explaining things in a rational perspective with empirical data to back it up

Clear example, what you perceive as rational automatically excludes anything supernatural. Your starting point in your reasoning makes an automatic assumption despite the fact that no scientific data exists to disprove God's existence. Therein lies the problem .....foundational reasoning.

There is no science that has brought anything metaphysical to the table though, and that's why ID will never be accepted into the scientific community-- there's nothing to work with

As I have said before ID is falsifiable and therefore should be considered on it's merits. It is falsifiable because if a mechanism of evolution can be found to have the ability to create information then ID is without a leg to stand on. That has not happened. The reality of what we see is that everything containing information was designed by an intelligent agent. What is not falsifiable is specifying the Designer. However, assuming that a designer does not exist simply because you have no way of identifying said designer is bad science. 

A key word here is evidence. Scientific concepts and models can change. Creationist science is bound by a one-way street incapable of change. It can only 'change' through interpretation to meet the specifications of new-found evidence.

Creation science is just as bound as any other science. If a scientist starts out with the prior notion that NOTHING Divine is allowed in science......he will come to a conclusion without any Divine notions. If a creationist scientist starts out assuming it HAS to be Divine then he will reach a conclusion containing the "ingredients" with which he used. It depends on the honesty and integrity of the scientist and his willingness to accept where his science will take him, even if it means he was dead wrong.  There are plenty of scientists both religious and non who have done this. There are plenty of people in general who have done this. But the scientific community as a whole refusing to acknowledge ID as legit, greatly shows the vast majority hold to their a priori commitment to not let the Divine foot in the door.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a source and any of it's contents in debate, based on it's (irrational) conclusion that "God did it", shows that your starting point is objective, not open minded.

[jcribb16]

The Bible says in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Proverbs 1:7 says, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom, and instruction."

Fools here, does not mean silliness or lack of knowledge and instruction, but that they have the inability to apply knowledge properly.  Evolution says that for something to be observed and tested it has to be seen.  In actuality, both Creation and Evolution are "faith-based" systems in regards to origins.  The problem is, then, is that even Evolutionists can't go back billions, millions, or thousands of years to observe and test the origin. They cannot prove that there was not or was an Intelligent Creator for the origin. But Romans 1:20 backs God's Creation.

Evolution began as a man-made theory.  Also, it is an excuse to try and explain how life came and exists apart from God.  Darwin never meant to disprove God's existence at first.  He claimed to have been Christian, and because of tragedies in his life, he renounced God. In stating his theory after that, disproving God's Creation did indeed mean that he wanted to disprove God's very existence. 

[Falconer02]

Clear example, what you perceive as rational automatically excludes anything supernatural. Your starting point in your reasoning makes an automatic assumption despite the fact that no scientific data exists to disprove God's existence. Therein lies the problem .....foundational reasoning.

Well what you quoted from me is the definition of science.
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"
"knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. "
Who said I'm trying to disprove any possibility of a deity? I'm just saying there's no evidence for it, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning. Only speculation. I think i've used the example of the 2 cavemen with fire before with you. Just because we don't know where or how the fire came to be does not mean we should just assume that it was a gift from god. And considering the history of religion constantly doing this and failing with newfound info, I think you see the problem I'm displaying.

As I have said before ID is falsifiable and therefore should be considered on it's merits. It is falsifiable because if a mechanism of evolution can be found to have the ability to create information then ID is without a leg to stand on.

Evolution does create/add new information into organisms. I thought this was a well-known attribute and has been observed. Where are you getting these excerpts from? ID to me just seems to be a hollow cop-out since it can constantly claim that it's falsifiable since there's nothing there to look at. It's like kids playing cops and robbers-- the one kid that won't be killed because he keeps claiming his skin is made of metal. That was always lame on the playground.

There are plenty of people in general who have done this. But the scientific community as a whole refusing to acknowledge ID as legit, greatly shows the vast majority hold to their a priori commitment to not let the Divine foot in the door.

I think this statement is hypocritical because this is under the assumption that the scientific community is out to emotionally stomp religion. It's not. It just keeps bumping into it as more research is done that worries religious foundations. Why do you think ID has bloated up in the last 20-30 years? ID wants to be there with it, which is fine, but with science, you need evidence. That's all I'm saying.

[shernajwine]

Well what you quoted from me is the definition of science.
"systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"

.......observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally

I'm just saying there's no evidence for it, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning

There is no evidence that cosmic causality was physical, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning to assume such a position. Unless you have faith...you know believing in something without proof 

Evolution does create/add new information into organisms

What mechanism of evolution creates/adds new information?

I think this statement is hypocritical because this is under the assumption that the scientific community is out to emotionally stomp religion

I don't believe that. I just believe that there are politics involved which obscure honest funding and research. And I believe that based on evidence 

[Falconer02]

.......observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally

There is no evidence that cosmic causality was physical, therefore it cannot be within any legit reasoning to assume such a position. Unless you have faith...you know believing in something without proof

I'm not going into a speculative argument here. Speculatively, anything is possible. We're talking about evolution and creationism via ID here. Not the origins of the universe or what came before it. Also, no watchmaker analogies here, plz.

What mechanism of evolution creates/adds new information?

Mutation. There's a ton of examples. Everything from small bacteria to...us!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/03/can-natural-selection-produce-new.html

There's plenty of info on the internet. Even wiki has some good examples.

I don't believe that. I just believe that there are politics involved which obscure honest funding and research. And I believe that based on evidence  

You've piqued my curiosity. Though I'm sure the hadron collider wasn't sponsored by evil atheist agendas! lol Please share what ya got on this subject tho.

[shernajwine]

We're talking about evolution and creationism via ID here. Not the origins of the universe or what came before it

The origins of the universe are completely relevant because we are talking about your assumption starting point that there can be no divine explanation. We are talking about your automatic disregard for anything assuming a creation position. Well, isn't the ultimate question, how did it all get here? Origins and ID vs evolution are not exclusive concepts.

I also want to make a clarification here....ID and creationism are not the same thing and although I sometimes use the terms interchangeably it is because I believe the Genesis account of creation which makes me a creationist. However I realize the position that creationists are in, in proving their case. ID is not creationism:

“Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”
It is based on empirical data: the empirical observation of the process of human design, and specific properties common to human design and biological information (CSI).
Creationism moves forward: that is, it assumes, asserts or accepts something about God and what he has to say about origins; then interprets nature in that context. Intelligent design moves backward: that is, it observes something interesting in nature (complex, specified information) and then theorises and tests possible ways how that might have come to be. Creationism is faith-based; Intelligent Design is empirically-based.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci

Mutation. There's a ton of examples. Everything from small bacteria to...us!

Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution9.htm (non creation site)

Please share what ya got on this subject tho

Well, I found examples in a number of books I have read over the last several months. I can't pin point a specific source because unless I JUST read it then I can't remember which source it came from. I DID just read about a Texas Tech professor who refused to give recommendations to students if they professed to believing in creation. He did not hide the fact that this was the case and when confronted the school administration sided with him. Though this is on a smaller scale of the kind of bigotry I am referring to. There are incidents of scientists losing funding because of their religious beliefs.

Edit:
Just came across this while further looking into the idea of mutation creating/adding information.....
Some scientific views are more equal than others in America
http://www.discovery.org/a/16491

[Falconer02]

We are talking about your automatic disregard for anything assuming a creation position.

Because ID leaves room for any type of deity or being. Including scientology viewpoints with star wars aliens doing it. Looking at it from the opposite end, you won't be able to conclude that some sort of designer was not involved in all/or part of the existence of life. Why? Because this ID claim can work with everything. There are no methods to test it. Thus my caveman fire and metal-skinned kid example-- you can attach this concept to anything you want and be invincible with it. You can't do that with things that exist-- they're testable. That's why it's pseudoscience and that's why it can't be used to explain things legitimately. It's a cop-out reasoning to put religion back into science. Debunked? No. Pretty much pointless unless there's scrutable evidence for it? Yes.

Ultimately ID should not be used on/for either side here since the designer is ambiguous. The chances of introducing one's own personal god into the mix is just a 'mind-bogglingly' irrational stretch. Behind the faith curtain, it's a grasp for straws.

Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?

I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth. lol Even if I did, I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!"

Well, I found examples in a number of books I have read over the last several months. I can't pin point a specific source because unless I JUST read it then I can't remember which source it came from. I DID just read about a Texas Tech professor who refused to give recommendations to students if they professed to believing in creation. He did not hide the fact that this was the case and when confronted the school administration sided with him. Though this is on a smaller scale of the kind of bigotry I am referring to. There are incidents of scientists losing funding because of their religious beliefs.

Thanks for sharing. I really don't see how that's bigotry considering I've read creationist books saying how the universe is 6000 years old by astronomers with their Masters. They've obviously taken a completely biased standpoint in the face of obvious evidence of it not being true. I'm under the impression that this Texas Professor knew about stuff like this and didn't want them to push for pseudoscience. I know this is a really harsh example, but if you're responsible for giving out FOID cards, are you going to give it to the guy with no record, or the guy who has a long criminal background?

[shernajwine]

It's a cop-out reasoning to put religion back into science

This is what sounds like a cop out to me "Sure it looks designed, sure we don't know and can't prove at the moment that it wasn't designed, but since you can't say without testable evidence who the designer is, EH throw it out the window." ID isn't saying anything about the designer....it is agnostic when it comes to that and many supporters of ID are not theists. They simply acknowledge that complex specified information seems to require an intelligent agent to create it. If someone wants to say it was God...that's their theological view...or if they believe the intelligence is aliens...that's their theological view. When it comes to the theological aspect is when it isn't science. ID making empirical statements about what is physically observed is what science is. And the ID theory is testable, making a statement about who the designer is, is not testable.

I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!

I bet any evolutionist reading this will do the same and say "evolution did it". I mean that's basically what it comes to, because where science can't make an empirical statement about what IS reality (i.e we exist) someone saying evolution did it, is no different than someone saying God did it. You asserting it was evolution doesn't make it fact, and vice versa. BUT again with ID they are not saying God did it. They are saying, an intelligent agent did it and they can honestly say, they don't know who that agent is. ID is not even denying evolution essentially, although any aspect of evolution theory proposing that CSI can organize by purely random natural acts is obviously in contention. But ID does acknowledge partial common descent.

They've obviously taken a completely biased standpoint in the face of obvious evidence of it not being true. I'm under the impression that this Texas Professor knew about stuff like this and didn't want them to push for pseudoscience.

So I should make sure that no homosexuals are allowed to be teachers because they might push their lifestyle on everyone else?

I am a creationist, this does not make me less effective at what I do in my career of choice. My being a creationist is based on my religion and for someone to treat me differently based on that is discrimination. Further the recommendation was for medical practice. Someone being a creationist does not effect their judgment in practicing medicine. But that attitude is exactly what I'm speaking of, people who have certain religious beliefs are not given the same treatment in the area of scientific grant research funding because of a dogmatic naturalist philosophy.
Methodological naturalism is simply a quite recently imposed “rule” that (a) defines science as a search for natural causes of observed phenomena AND (b) forbids the researcher to consider any other explanation, regardless of what the evidence may indicate. In keeping with that principle, it begs the question and roundly declares that (c) any research that finds evidence of design in nature is invalid and that (d) any methods employed toward that end are non-scientific. http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#notsci
I highlighted recently because this hasn't always been the case. Although I shouldn't be, I am shocked that you would defend such an action as done by that Texas Tech professor. Having said yourself to have come across very intelligent people who believe in God. Their faith should not be discriminated against, and if it was any other situation of discrimination it would not be tolerated.

I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth.

I'm sorry to hear that, I just started getting over my ailments today but my whole family has taken turns so it seems that someone has been sick for the past two months Yuck! Hope you feel better soon.

You have a point, I can't answer that question without reading other scientists research and if it doesn't have at least SOME laymens terms then sometimes I get completely lost. However, my whole point was that you were defending your automatic disregard for certain websites. If you can't say empirically that an intelligence was not the cause of complex life and the universe as we know it, then you can't honestly disregard a website that says intelligence is a possibility.

You want to disregard a statement that says it was God....ok I can understand that. But FYI someone who believes in God is capable of doing real science with observable testable research that disproves claims made by evolutionists. To dismiss their science simply because of their faith is basically hypocritical and closed minded. It's tantamount to refusing to eat food that was made by a (insert race of your choice black/chinese etc)person, not because the food was made wrong but just because they are (black/chinese etc) you conclude it MUST be made wrong. It's not because you are truly justified, it's that you have a prejudice. You have the right to do so, but it is my opinion of the situation at any rate.

[Falconer02]

"Sure it looks designed, sure we don't know and can't prove at the moment that it wasn't designed, but since you can't say without testable evidence who the designer is, EH throw it out the window."

The argument for a designer is not thrown out the window. It's there, but it can't be used in anything scientific since there is absolutely no basis for it. Every aspect of ID is speculative because you can't make any predictions and it simply relies on the whole 'god-of-the-gaps' reasoning (again- caveman fire) and those good ol' fallible watchmaker analogies. ID does not explain things, which is overwhelmingly essential to us. With evolution, scientists can and they have made predictions and validated their findings for everyone to see.

Intelligent design offers no testable hypotheses and, instead, offers only an explanation for observations of complex structures and phenomena in biology that must be taken on faith. As such, it offers less to a science class than does "flat-Earth theory" or "Earth-as-the-center-of-the-solar-system theory," both of which led to testable hypotheses and, ultimately, their rejection as predictive explanatory theories.
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/236793_inteldop.html

I bet any evolutionist reading this will do the same and say "evolution did it". I mean that's basically what it comes to, because where science can't make an empirical statement about what IS reality (i.e we exist) someone saying evolution did it, is no different than someone saying God did it. You asserting it was evolution doesn't make it fact, and vice versa. BUT again with ID they are not saying God did it. They are saying, an intelligent agent did it and they can honestly say, they don't know who that agent is.

I don't ever hear people go "Evolution did it!" without also hearing "This is how it went down via the findings. Keep in mind there are still gaps.". I've never heard an ID backer say something like this because they are christian and saying that they don't know who that agent is makes them look extremely unfaithful to their own personal god.

So I should make sure that no homosexuals are allowed to be teachers because they might push their lifestyle on everyone else?

I don't think an unchangeable sexual preference is a good example for something that can change via thorough research and discipline.

I am shocked that you would defend such an action as done by that Texas Tech professor. Having said yourself to have come across very intelligent people who believe in God. Their faith should not be discriminated against, and if it was any other situation of discrimination it would not be tolerated.

It depends on all the variables presented. We were both going on assumptions (me mostly), but now that I've researched it, I can see your point. Though I will say I understand both sides completely- the fact that Dini is also religious really waters this down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/education/03PROF.html

But FYI someone who believes in God is capable of doing real science with observable testable research that disproves claims made by evolutionists. To dismiss their science simply because of their faith is basically hypocritical and closed minded. It's tantamount to refusing to eat food that was made by a (insert race of your choice black/chinese etc)person, not because the food was made wrong but just because they are (black/chinese etc) you conclude it MUST be made wrong. It's not because you are truly justified, it's that you have a prejudice. You have the right to do so, but it is my opinion of the situation at any rate.

Well don't paint me as a religious-racist! lol I have no problem with those who believe in a god and don't push it left and right. I have a problem with those who push their faith into science and politics and expect it to be handled with no skepticism. The only 'racism' I have pertaining to this subject are against those who deliberately make their food taste like crap and then tell people praise and spread it when the faults are so obvious-- Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Venomfangx, etc.

[shernajwine]

Every aspect of ID is speculative because you can't make any predictions

That is false:  As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Non-functionality of “junk DNA” was predicted by Susumu Ohno (1972), Richard Dawkins (1976), Crick and Orgel (1980), Pagel and Johnstone (1992), and Ken Miller (1994), based on evolutionary presuppositions.

By contrast, predictions of functionality of “junk DNA” were made based on teleological bases by Michael Denton (1986, 1998), Michael Behe (1996), John West (1998), William Dembski (1998), Richard Hirsch (2000), and Jonathan Wells (2004).

These Intelligent Design predictions are being confirmed. e.g., ENCODE’s June 2007 results show substantial functionality across the genome in such “junk” DNA regions, including pseudogenes.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#nopred

I don't think an unchangeable sexual preference is a good example for something that can change via thorough research and discipline.

Sexual preference/religious preference. You don't deny someone something or treat them different based on something that has no basis on their ability to perform their job. It's called prejudice and it's called intolerance. And I have done research and I would consider myself relatively intelligent and my religious views about God have not changed. So it is the same situation.

I don't ever hear people go "Evolution did it!"

I have, and not only have I heard it but it is a statement by default when you claim there are gaps and yet deny a creator. There are only two possibilities when it comes to the existence of life:
1.Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
2.There is a Creator who designed biological systems

If you deny a creator there are certian things that scientific research dictates that you must believe and you believe them despite lack of evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence that proves otherwise.

The only 'racism' I have pertaining to this subject are against those who deliberately make their food taste like crap

LOL, well that is an objective statement, after all I think cavier is disgusting yet some people seem to enjoy it 

[Falconer02]

That is false:  As just one example of a successful ID-based prediction:

Seems like ID is just jumping on the wagon and sitting in the holes as usual. What's the testable mechanism to show the designer at work for the junk dna-- what's the testable theory behind these predictions? Surely any ID follower could show this without falling into the whole divine fallacy I keep bringing up.

don't deny someone something or treat them different based on something that has no basis on their ability to perform their job.

If I was a medical professor and someone wanted a reference from me, but they told me they believed witchcraft was an authentic way of treating a sick individual, I would not give them a reference. Much as if I was a geology/anthropology/history professor and someone wanted a reference, but they told me they believe the world can't be over 6,000 years old, I would not give them a reference. Call it intolerance and prejudice if you wish- I don't want my name soiled and I don't want pseudoscience spreading around to others. This one teacher stretched the concept a bit too far though and I agree with you that it was intolerant and a bit hypocritical.

you deny a creator there are certian things that scientific research dictates that you must believe and you believe them despite lack of evidence and also in the face of contradictory evidence that proves otherwise.

Again, I'm not denying a creator. I'm also not denying space aliens doing it. Or ______________ (fill in the blank with any super meta thing). These previous 3 sentences are the problem with ID-- there's nothing to work with to form into a theory. Saying it is science is both a divine fallacy and an argument from incredulity.

LOL, well that is an objective statement, after all I think cavier is disgusting yet some people seem to enjoy it

Heheh perhaps I didn't think up the example too well. Let me rephrase my last post- I get mad at those types who bend over and crap in the pot infront of everyone and then serve it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMfHLO2iOQc&feature=related

[animikokala]

Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA?

I'm tired and sick here so I have no idea right now. And I doubt either of us has enough high-end education to answer this thoroughly without chucking links back and forth. lol Even if I did, I bet any creationist reading this would keep moving the goal-posts and pull more of the "god did it!"

Wow!  I missed a lot of posts.  Yesterday I was looking up information on a college, and today I was actually at the college scoping them out to finish my (Biology) degree.  

As for this, point mutations do explain both new chromosomes or the lengthening (or shortening) of DNA.
There are several types of point mutations.  The smallest are base-pair substitutions; which change one pair of nucleotides with a different one.  This can cause that particular section to produce a different amino acid (but it may not, many amino acids have many possible nucleotide combinations).  It will usually lead to a protein that is useless or less effective, or rarely lead to a better functioning protein; it's typically the mildest of mutations.  
Insertion and deletions are the additions or losses of nucleotide pairs in a gene (lengthening or shortening).  These can have a devastating effect if they are near beginning sections of a strand, as they alter the amino acid codes of every part of the strand after it (the mutation).  

Mutations occur in about 1 in every 100,000 genes per generation, and that change is passed on to the next generation of cells.  It doesn't seem like many, but with the number of replications that occur at the cellular level, it occurs quite often.  It's why single-celled organisms can adapt so much faster than more complex organisms; any mutations are passed on to the next generation of single-celled organisms, while multi-cellular organisms require a mutation during the creation of gametes (reproductive cells) for the mutation to carry on to the next generation.


This also answers the question about chromosomes, as chromosomes are the DNA.  Chromosomes are the condensed and duplicated DNA strands, only appearing during cell replication.  
And for chromosomes, they have their own special type of error called nondisjunction, where the homologous pairs of chromosomes fail to split apart during anaphase I of mitosis, or the sister chromatids fail to split in anaphase II of meiosis.  This leads to one cell with two sets of an identical chromosome, and one cell missing a chromosome. Nondisjunction occurs very frequently in meiosis, but usually the results are so devastating in developing zygotes that they tend to miscarriage very early in a pregnancy.

Some of the disorders caused by nondisjunction:  Down Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome

During cell division, pieces of the chromosomes can also be deleted, or broken off and joined with either a different chromosome (may cause errors in gene expression) or the other part of the homologous pair, causing a duplication.  Add in the frequent rate of mutation, and that's how the genome managed to grow.  

Sorry if this is a bit long-winded; I enjoyed it a little too much.  

[shernajwine]

Seems like ID is just jumping on the wagon and sitting in the holes as usual

I have heard it said by many an evolutionist scientist that it's ok to say "We don't know". ID is proving through observational research that intelligence is the precursor to CSI. ID theorists say they cannot say who or what that intelligence is. It is the same as observing reality and creating the big bang model....this created a new hurdle. Causality. Causality all the way through to the appearance of life to all the forms of complex life we see today. Evolutionists say they don't know the cause but they are working on it (insert the various ideas of the day), ID says they don't know the cause but they believe it to be an intelligent agent, and they are working on the evidence. Not being able to determine the intelligence doesn't make it unscientific, it's saying we know this much and that's the platform we are working on for further studies.

Individuals who believe in ID can say they believe the intelligence to be a specified god/whatever. But as a theory, it isn't saying anything about god/gods, it's purpose is not to prove the designers identity, only to prove that CSI requires intelligence.

But I feel like we are going in circles on this issue at this point. So feel free to comment but there's not much else I can say about it lol.  

Saying it is science is both a divine fallacy and an argument from incredulity.

Only from a standpoint of methodological naturalism.

I get mad at those types who bend over and crap in the pot infront of everyone and then serve it.

I can sympathize with your sentiments.