"He can’t show he is 3-D,..."

Although there is no proof for this, and i am not saying that is it fact, but, as many people believe (and many dont) Jesus Christ was the son of God, and God in the flesh. Therefore He was God presenting himself in a 3-D form.

Perhaps the ID enthusiasts do believe in a Creator without restraints, but I don’t see why ID theory inherently requires it.

Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk...well not much of one anyways, but you really need to read these guys writings. Here is the short version via Dembski:

1. Evolution cannot create CSI (Complex Specified Information).
2. Hence CSI => a designer.
3. That designer cannot arise via evolution (see # 1 on this).
4. Hence the designer is supernatural.
5. What constraints can we detect/place on a supernatural designer (oh heck, lets just call him God, k?)?

So you see, ID has a serious methodological problem right there. From there getting into specific ideas like Dembski's Explanatory Filter, Behe's Irreducible Complexity, and so forth we run into real problems methodologically there as well.

Even if you were agnostic, the possibility of irreducible complexity might give you pause, as it did Darwin, which is why he spent so much time responding to it.

And so far every single IC (Irreducibly Complex) system has been found to be the product of evolution (well the work on the flagellum is on-going, but the evidence so far is pretty good that the flagellum evolved). So, were these systems IC or not. If the answer is no, then perhaps the concept is vacuous. If the answer is yes, the ID is dead as far as IC is concerned as it becomes patently obvious that IC systems are not a problem for evolution.

Is this something you’ve really researched or are you just guessing?

No, it is something I've watched. Every time an IDist gets an article published in the peer reviewed literature they crow and crow about it. Then in looking at it, it is obvious that despite the IDists claims, the article has virtually nothing to do with ID or actual research. Also at the design inference weblog you can see Paul Nelson's (an IDists) statements backing this claim up.

And for a further note you all are using a test of falsability for backing…everyone knows that is not possible. We all learned that in Freshman Highschool science

Yes, the Popperian view has its issues, that is why I prefer the Bayesian approach.

As someone who has no bones to pick with evolution, I think this is a really weak reasoning. I think few people are denying the existance of selective pressure due to environmental factors for certain traits.

About the only IDist to come out in favor of this veiw is Michael Behe. All the others eschew admitting that the above is indeed the case. Dembski for example has argued that evolution cannot produce new information--i.e. evolution is pretty much dead in the water in terms of speciation. You look at Dembski's other article on questions evolutionists would rather dodge and it becomes pretty clear that Dembski is most likely a Young Earth Creationist.

My guess is that if ID does manage to "win this debate" the next step will be each faction tearing each other apart. The Moonies, the YECs, the OECs, and all the other sub-groups will instant turn on each other pronouncing the other heretics or non-believers.

Oh and DJ with regards to the 3-D god in t he 2-D world, pretty cool, but I don't see how that helps. I don't see any constraints that are placed on God in terms of how he presents himself to us. He can choose to be a dot, a line or a square. He can't show he is 3-D, but he could announce that he is 3-D hence our limited understanding of his true appearance and mis-understanding his "True Nature". Perhaps I am missing something.

More importantly, I just don't see how you can know that it isn't possible to design experiments to test the thesis that some systems have such complexity that they cannot be derived from intermediate forms. Even if you were agnostic, the possibility of irreducible complexity might give you pause, as it did Darwin, which is why he spent so much time responding to it. I happen to think his response works, but I wouldn't think it anti-science to pursue an alternative theory that doesn't demand it.

"...nobody on the ID side seems interested in doing this kind of heavy lifting."

Is this something you've really researched or are you just guessing?

Show me how it turns into a bird or a frog. This is the kind of grasping at straws evolutionists have been religated to.

Oh you want to see creationism, then. Sorry I can't help you there, I only tend to defend evolutionary theory. Go talk to somebody like Dembski or Ken Ham.

Your using the fact that Genetics exist as proof for the need for evolution. No matter how it got here, it is, and knowing evolution is not going to affect the applications of genetics, nor Does ID prevent it.

Uhhh, no. They are using genetic evolutionary algorithms.

I’m not an ID enthusiast, but this just won’t do. Science routinely comes up with hyptheses that it cannot test, at least at the present time. Your argument only follows if it is inconceivable that there could ever be testable hypotheses, predictions, or experiments from the ID school. I’m not sure how that can be shown.

Uhhh, again no. The problem with ID is that they rely on a creator that literally has not constraints put on him. There is no way to falsify/test that.

I would prefer to say that ID has little supporting evidence so far....

Try none, and nobody on the ID side seems interested in doing this kind of heavy lifting. Then again, when you have to put forward a testable hypothesis that could possibly falsify the existence of your God that is asking a bit much. Further, as already noted, how exactly do you come up with a testable hypothesis for being with no constraints?

I'm not an ID enthusiast, but this just won't do. Science routinely comes up with hyptheses that it cannot test, at least at the present time. Your argument only follows if it is inconceivable that there could ever be testable hypotheses, predictions, or experiments from the ID school. I'm not sure how that can be shown.

I would note too that Darwin did not consider creationism (which I know is not necessarily equivalent to ID) an untestable theory. In fact, he thought that there was much evidence that spoke against it, such as the fact that many organisms seem to have rudimentary features that serve no function but that resemble the features of other organims for which there is a function. If God had created all of the species perfect, it isn't clear why there would be such uselessness.

I would prefer to say that ID has little supporting evidence so far and that it does not show enough promise for me to think that we should throw money at it. If there are scientists who want to pursue it, however, and can find the funding, more power to them.

Show me how it turns into a bird or a frog. This is the kind of grasping at straws evolutionists have been religated to.

Insects or bacteria becoming immune isn’t evolving, it’s adapting. The new strain isn’t a new species – especially since they can mate with the old strain (you do know what the definition of a species is?).

Do you know what the definition of evolution is? If an insect develops an immunity to a chemical - yeah, that's an adaptation. But if it can then pass that immunity to its offspring, that's evolution.

And your attempted dodge to addressing other educational shortfalls doesn't fly either. Lemme give you an analogy: which is more important in your car, the engine or the gas tank? The obvious answer is the engine, but both are basic requirements if you want to go anywhere. Likewise, basic reading skills can be considered "more important" than comprehending basic science, but without both, you're still not going to go anywhere.

Insects or bacteria becoming immune isn't evolving, it's adapting. The new strain isn't a new species - especially since they can mate with the old strain (you do know what the definition of a species is?). So what this has to do with evolution vs. anything else really doesn't make sense.

You harp on this issue in the schools more than any other when at the same time tens of thousands of high schoolers graduate each year without basic reading skills. Which one is more important? Where should we be spending our time and effort arguing about? What about the false theory of global warming? That will end up doing more harm to our economy than arguing about whether our grandparents were monkeys.

Your priorities are in the wrong place.