Or join Spaghetti Monsterism, like I did. Seriously, the existence of the Spaghetti Monster is self evident, so you have no reason to doubt him.

[edit]

Okay, this is really a troll post. Please ignore me.

They neglected to kill the people who made the translation errors in the original Hebrew->Greek translation though.

Even setting that aside, what is a day to god? Couldn't an age be like a day to god? Isn't it plain hubris to assume that a `day' has to be what we humans call a day?

Yes, and there are no other contradictions in the bible. Let alone contradictions between the old and new testaments.

I think faith is commonly defined as a belief in something without asking for rational proof. That's certainly what it means to me.
(Note: this is not meant as a moral judgement on the subject of faith, simply on the meaning of the word).

To me, it's perfectly clear that no such thing as a god can and does exist. I see no falsifiable, scientific evidence to assume otherwise.
So clearly, it is possible.

Anyway, I don't think this was about the existence or non-existence of god or wether the bible should be taken verbatim. It was about the merits of intelligent design as a scientific theory and as I said, I don't think there's any evidence for it.

Their evidence is design itself. According to their own studies it is mathematically impossible for purely natural processes to account for all the design and the sheer amount of information in the genome. That is the whole point of ID.

On the issue of faith, faith in something that contradicts what you can clearly see with your own two eyes is just stupid. Faith and knowledge go hand-in-hand. I mean, how can you believe in something without at least some evidence. Also of note is Paul's definition of faith:

[begin ramble]
I think that faith completes knowledge. After all, we can only know so much and even within our own brain there can be contradictory beliefs. Faith in what we already know even without all the details allows us to act. Faith is strengthened through experience.

Also we need to consider what evidence is sufficent. For some it is sufficient to hear someone else say something is true for them to believe. Others need to find out for themselves. Still others only need someone to make a logical case.

Once you believe in something your actions and thoughts will be affected by it. The more you live with a belief, the harder it will be for someone to convince you that it is false because you've lived with it and interpreted your experiences in light of it. People have turning points in their lives when they look back at their life experiences and at what they believe and see that the two don't fit together.
[end ramble]

Here's what's needed for a theory to be considered scientific:

ID theory is consitent at least as much so as macro-evolution theory

ID is parsimomious, macro-evolution is not

ID is as useful as macro-evolution (not very in scientific studies)

ID is not testable or falsifiable and neither is macro-evolution

Not sure about the experiments thing

ID is correctable and I suppose macro-evolution is, too

Neither or both are progressive depending on how you look at it

Neither are tentative

Yep. This also seems to be in the realm of argument immunization which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

I checked on Wikipedia to see what they had about ID. By reading that article you get the impression that real science has proven that ID is false. If you actually read any ID papers you will get a different impression. This paper (cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia article) goes into detail about one of the core evidences of ID, irreducible complexity.

Todd Cope, you have said that evolution is not testable or falsifiable, and that it is not useful in scientific studies. This tells me that you just don't know enough about evolution. Scientific theories aren't always easy. If you are having troubling understanding how they work or what they say, that doesn't mean that they are no good. You may not know how evolution is useful, but experts on biology do know. You can't just pick up scraps of information from here and there and then say that evolution is hopeless.

Look at all the things science has done for you. Look at the modern world. The technology, the medicine, even in art science has done great things. Why are you people willing to turn around and fight against this? You are biting the hand that feeds you. Evolution can be left out of this argument entirely; the point is that the advocates of 'Intelligent Design' are trying to destroy science! I've sure you've all heard about the wedge strategy. These people are trying to put a stop to human progress in understanding the world, all because it disagrees with their belief system. ID isn't some new controversial scientific theory, it is a brutal assault on science itself, lead by creationists to defend their dieing faith. Why would you want to support these fanatics?? If you can't tell if ID is science or not, then listen to the scientists all over the world: it's not.

That second paragraph was aimed at everybody, not at Todd in particular

I'm not going to even try to explain to you the finer points of evolution. Partially because I wouldn't trust myself to do it justice, and partially because it's beside the point. Evolution has been recongised as a scientific theory for a long time now. The 'new' kid of the block is ID, he should be the one under attack. And I say 'new', because this is just creationism wearing a thin veil. Creationism was never considered to be science, always religion. And what I said about ID being an attack designed to derail science was no exaggeration. It's really scary that so many people have fallen into the circle of propaganda.

Have you not heard about the wedge? What I said is true.

There have been proposed many possible paths leading to the eye and other complex organs using only evolution sized steps.

Irreducible Complexity:

There are a couple of ways this term is used. When used by many people it refers to a system for which there is known natural explanation for its evolution. The definition of Behe is much narrower. Its a collection of parts which all required before the system can function at all. The eye can function without a lens, thus it does not fit under that category. Something such as the bacterial flaggelum does because we can see that the removal of any part of the flaggelum causes the complete and total failure of the flaggem.

Now Behe in his book didn't claim that proved it could not have evolved. Rather he suggested that it was possible that evolution might reach it indirectly. But that the more of such systems that were discovered the more problems Darwinian evolution had to face.

The Eye-Path:
Let me see if google knows...

Ok, this appears to be Darwin's suggestion:
1. photosensitive cell
2. aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
3. an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
4. pigment cells forming a small depression
5. pigment cells forming a deeper depression
6. the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
7. muscles allowing the lens to adjust

Or, look at this way:

Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();

for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddSkinCovering();

CreateDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddSkinCovering();

CreateBigDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddLens();

CreateBigDepression();
for(int x = 0;x < 5;x++)
    Place(new PhotoSensitiveCell);
AddNerve();
AddLens();
AddLensMuscle();

There, in beautiful C++ we have the evolution of the eye. And in such small steps as we might not complain about.

The problem is that I'm leaving out all kinds of stuff. I'm calling all these functions and haven't actually done anything to define them. If they consist of a single line of code, we might potentially be fine. However, in some cases they are clearly made up of many lines of code. While the steps may at each step be more benefical then the last, these steps are clearly not reasonable sized pieces.

The model of our world is not relevant because we are talking specifically about biology. This definition is not meant to encompass any system, only biological ones.

This statement shows the existence of an axiom that controls how things are studied--we cannot explain things in purely evolutionary terms right now but some day in the future we will be able to because we know that only naturalistic processes can account for everything. This automatically excludes the possibility of intelligent intervention meaning you are not open to that possibility.

Edit:

Yes, and the things that are left out are very important. The details that are glossed over (left out) are things that actual experimental data shows cannot be true or at best are mathematically impossible.

Nope. I'm merely suggesting that intelligent intervention is not allowed to be considered when trying to explain how things currently are. That is why they try so hard to find naturalistic explanations. But when naturalistic explanations cannot be found they merely push the problems into the future hoping that some day they will be solved instead of considering alternative explanations.

I may have misunderstood what you meant.

This is in regards to biological systems such as blood clotting or the eye not the ecosystem.

Yes, by all means don't stop trying to find the naturalistic explanations. I have not problems with these things being researched. I only have problems with the established "science" community promoting as facts things which have not been proven.

It irritates me when they teach people in school that people came from apes which came from lower animals when they can't actually scientifically prove it. They give a big picture and the many missing details make it unlikely to be true but we await further research to be sure. In the mean time let's go ahead and tell them it's true.