You are totally off the map. The issue is scientific proof of ID. None exists. There is no philosophical implication connected with evolution proceding via random mutation, except to those, whom like yourself, mistakenly believe that randomness must be equated with godlessness. Nothing could be farther from the truth. God, could be in charge of random mutation, but to the scientist, only randomness would be observable. The existence of a "supernatural" intelligent designer is not scientifically ascertainable without permitting magic into the definition of what is and what is not scientific. So, it is left to theists, such as yourself, to imply the divine purpose behind evolution. Scientifically speaking, evolution is a fact. ID is scientifically unprovable, and as such it will always remain philosophy/theism. Important, yes. Scientific, no.
No, the issue really comes down to the teaching in schools of an unproved, unprovable, unfalsifiable theory, guess, belief system of random ignorant unguided non designed changes being the origin of life... ID is a response to the Darwinists, and serves to illustrate that when we look at Darwinism, we see the glaring weakness of its conclusions resting on a principle founded in ignorance, not proof of non design... Teaching biological fact, observed biological process is fine, but leave out the mysticism of "spontaneous random ignorant chance mutations" being the origin of man. Biology would still go on without Darwinism, it would just be more scientific and fact based, and less fanciful atheistic, guess ridden, founded on a platform of intellectual hubris and atheistic people who are very much political and agenda driven...
Darwinism is not a scientifically proven fact. When you have scientific proof of random ignorant chance that eliminates the possibility, both factually and logically of ID, then provide it. Promoting unproved and unprovable belief systems has zero place in science classes in publicly funded school systems, but as long as we have dogmatic atheistic driven scientists running the show, having duped the sheeple into thinking that they are promoting science---rather than their own faith, we should balance that so that children can see both sides of the debate and decide for themselves.
The proof you seek is simple, and available. There are over 185,000 peer reviewed studies in the National Institute of Health's biological Pub Med database, relating to evolution, and every one of them provides support for the theory. There are also 528 peer reviewed studies relating to intelligent design, and every one of them refutes the theory. That you cannot accept scientific reality due to your need to absolutely prevail in every argument that takes place in this forum, in order to bring meaning to your life, is your problem, not mine. I do not suffer from this affliction. I have walked away numerous times before, and I shall do so again, now -- leaving you with the last word, which of course you will be unable to refrain from.
I suspect that the vast majority of the 185K peer reviewed studies that are supportive to Darwinism (yes, there is a huge difference between evolution and Darwinism...evolution is an observed biological process...Darwinism is an imagination of the mind of man) are grounded in an assumptive position that observed biological changes in which a pattern is not known or currently knowable; are random, and unplanned mutations from the previous programming...rather than planned, designed, or intelligently programmed events... I can accept scientific truths, and I can accept that scientists have their own belief systems, and I can accept there are fundamental questions unanswered...what I find unacceptable is the dogmatic manner in which biological process have been spun into the myth of Darwinism...and then taught in the public school system. The personal belief system of a teacher in school should never be a factor in their teaching, be they theist or atheist, but in practical manners, this is not what is happening. The atheistic driven movement is pushing Darwinism, on the basis of an assumptive position of unplanned ignorant chance, when in fact it is not known...and yes indeedee, it does matter if the changes we observe are planned or not when it comes to origin of man.
Your post is full of misunderstandings of science. Let me try to explain to you as best as I can. 1. There is a huge difference between theory of evolution, which is science, and Darwinism, which is complete nonsense. I don't know whether your comfusing the two is intentional. I hope it's just ignorance not intentional misleading. 2. A good scientist should not believe in any dogma, be it theory of evolution or theory of gravity. OTOH, she should also ground her reasoning firmly on the basis of empirical evidence. The reason that theories of gravity and evolution are taught as science but theoris of intelligent pulling and intelligent design are not, is because the former two have vast bodies of empirical evidence in support of the theories, but the latter two have not a single thread of supporting empirical evidence that can be verified scientifically. 3. Scientific method is religion neutral. Whether you believe in God, or evil, or anything in between, does not give you more or less weight in your scientific investigation. However, religion can and does often severely prejudice one in scientific research. It's no surprise that a disproportional large number of atheists are accomplished scientists. The reason is not that somehow science is the domain of atheists. Most religious people start their scientific studies with strong, pre-formed opinions. It is easier for atheists to start with an open mind. However, I have met many good scientists who are also good Christians. They are successful because they're able to keep put their religious belief aside and keep an open mind when it comes to scientific study. 4. You're wrong when you say that scientists have their own belief systems, as if their belief systems are somehow different than the rest of us. There are Buddist scientists, Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, and atheist scientists. They don't have some exotic belief system that we don't understand. Scientific methodology is not a belief system. It is a method to investigate and understand Nature (and ourselves), a method to tell us what are probably true, and what are likely false.
Z, that your a lousy troll is bad enough, but your a bonehead to boot. http://darwin-online.org.uk/ Im sorry your still so depressed over reading Kant, or that your powerless in the face of superior quips, but its time you did some reading.
Your post is full of misunderstandings of science. Your opinion. Let me try to explain to you as best as I can. Explain all you like, but still your opinion, unless you have been appointed as the official spokesman for all of science... 1. There is a huge difference between theory of evolution, which is science, and Darwinism, which is complete nonsense. I don't know whether your comfusing the two is intentional. I hope it's just ignorance not intentional misleading. Yes, there is indeed a huge difference between observed biological processes and the myth produced by Darwinism. Just as there is a huge difference between the ignition system in a car and the process of designing a car or knowing where cars come from. Unfortunately the average person thinks evolution means Darwinism. Listen to the new sometime when they mention evolution, and it is meant dogmatically in the same vein as Darwin, not just observed biological processes. Teachers present evolution not in isolation as simply a biological process as it should be presented, but rather as the cornerstone of a much larger concept of Darwinism and the origin of man. When the newscaster says "Scientists think..." it is written and said as if it were some fact of science because some scientists think something, when clearly their opinions do not necessarily constitute fact. 2. A good scientist should not believe in any dogma, be it theory of evolution or theory of gravity. OTOH, she should also ground her reasoning firmly on the basis of empirical evidence. The reason that theories of gravity and evolution are taught as science but theoris of intelligent pulling and intelligent design are not, is because the former two have vast bodies of empirical evidence in support of the theories, but the latter two have not a single thread of supporting empirical evidence that can be verified scientifically. A good scientist can believe any dogma, I don't care. What matters is whether their own dogmas influence the way in which they teach if they are teachers in the public school system, and what conclusions they are trying to lead their students to. 3. Scientific method is religion neutral. Whether you believe in God, or evil, or anything in between, does not give you more or less weight in your scientific investigation. However, religion can and does often severely prejudice one in scientific research. It's no surprise that a disproportional large number of atheists are accomplished scientists. The reason is not that somehow science is the domain of atheists. Most religious people start their scientific studies with strong, pre-formed opinions. It is easier for atheists to start with an open mind. However, I have met many good scientists who are also good Christians. They are successful because they're able to keep put their religious belief aside and keep an open mind when it comes to scientific study. I don't think it can influence pure research, as pure research is objective by definition. Bias can influence what is reported, how the findings are written, etc. We see lots of so called scientists arguing from conclusion, in search of facts only to support a conclusion, rather than looking for facts that would also make their conclusion false. 4. You're wrong when you say that scientists have their own belief systems Bullshit. ...as if their belief systems are somehow different than the rest of us. The majority of scientists are quite different from the general populatoin in their belief systems: http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm So they are different than the "rest of us." They have an agenda...and it is not about real and pure objectivity when it comes to the origin of man...