To the extent that 'ID' is a criticism of evolutionary theory, it is useful, but criticism is a built in part of the peer review process. ID doesn't offer anything new (at least anything coherent). Evolutionary theory, and it's parts should be up against criticism, that's science. But simply saying, "no, no, that's to complex for me to understand, so it couldn't have happened that way" doesn't cut it. For my part, I will respect ID as a science when it establishes itself as a science. It has not done so thus far.

The real inconsistencies, that I'm actually surprised that people don't catch are between ID and the Bible. TBH, I find ID to be out of line with some of the ideas presented in the Bible. Granted, the next guys interpretation is just as valid as mine, but these concepts are pretty straightforward. 


Revelations19:6
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

If an omnipotent creator brought life about, it would be entirely capable of using genetic variance (of the genes it designed), natural selection (it designed nature as well), and other evolutionary processes (all of which an omnipotent designer could design) in the process of building and designing organisms. To claim a creator would be unable to use these methods would limit that creator. Essentially, the claim of ID proponents when they say evolutionary processes can't account for diversity of life, is that a designer could not design a functional system of evolutionary processes with which to develop it's creatures. The implication is that the natural method it devised is faulty, and it has to "cheat" to make progress with new species.


Genesis 32:12
And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

The probability branch of ID rests on the idea that we can know how much substance is in the universe. Sometimes an estimate of the number of atoms is used for these calculations. This is out of line with honest scientific thought. 10^80 or 10^81 is an estimate based on the observable universe. In addition to it's contradiction of science (by misuse of estimated data), ID also contradicts scripture, which holds that not even the grains of sand in the sea can be counted. The idea that we can definitively and accurately quantify the totality of the creators work is in opposition to the ideas presented in Genesis.


Mark 3:4-5
And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

This is JC healing a man on the Sabbath, despite the Pharisee's allegation of violation of the law. JC taught of the spirit and letter of the law. In the US, the spirit of the law is clear in keeping religion out of public education. The story of ID is more one of maneuvering by lawyers in regard to how the law can be stretched to to avoid the constraints of it's intent than of scientists and scientific work. Working toward fulfilling th letter of the law law by editing creationist texts and resubmitting them as ID disregards the spirit of the law (no creationism in public school science curriculum).


Deuteronomy 5:20
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

The God of Abraham frowns on dishonesty. The claim that evolutionary theory is not supported by empirical evidence is oft repeated, and is false. These are lies told about the scientific community and their work. The act of editing out references to creation from a creationist textbook and the resubmitting the textbook as ID is dishonest. The change from 'creationism' to 'ID' was an attempt at slight of hand deception.


Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

If ID concepts were in fact based on the wisdom contained in the good book, the methodologies of the designer would be of interest to the ID researcher, not something to obfuscate and attempt to paint as discredited by confusing people who read their literature.


Exodus 35:31
And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship

Scientific inquiry, including into evolutionary biology, is well in line with the principles of scripture that many people espouse. The black box "the designer just created it" of ID is contrary to the concept of searching for an understanding of the world recommended in the Bible. Scripture suggest that knowledge and understanding are things "God" wants us to have.

   

It is not the suggestion that design may be present that I see is contradictory with scripture. This claim isn't in any way out of line with scripture (at least by my reading of it). It is the statement that materialistic causes cannot account for the diversity of life on earth that I see as contradictory. If "God" created those materialistic causes (which surely is within the power of an omnipotent being), to deny the possibility that they could account for life is to deny the possibility that "God" could design materialistic mechanisms capable of building his designs. To claim that a designer must individually start each genetic line itself is to deny that the designer is capable of automating the process.

Evolution and natural selection need not be teleological, because an omniscient creator would already know what all of the creatures that will spring from the common beginning will be. An omniscient and omnipotent being would know exactly how much charge would be needed a certain distance away from a lightning strike, or exactly what the electron flow between two charged clumps of metallic rock would need to be to start life in the primordial soup that it created. Matter of fact, an omnipotent being has limitless ways of designing the right circumstances for life to arise. To think that an omniscient being must use direct methods in design of biology is somewhat absurd. An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being certainly would be capable of causing a big bang, which it already understood would lead to the creation of stars and planets, which it already understood would cause biological life to arise and evolve (through properties of the universe that it designed), which it already understood would yield a multitude of life. The ability to produce seemingly improbable results within the bounds of a set of materialist processes which it created would be entirely within the capabilities of an omnipotent being.

Cdesign Proponentsism and scripture diverge in their description of the designer/creator. Design assumes that materialistic processes (which were designed) cannot account for diversity. ID limits the designer in ways that scripture does not.



The observable universe is not the entire universe. Using an estimate of the population of the observable universe as a parameter of the entire universe is faulty reasoning.



Genesis 32:11-13
11Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him, lest he will come and smite me, and the mother with the children.

 12And thou saidst, I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

 13And he lodged there that same night; and took of that which came to his hand a present for Esau his brother;

The words of Jacob, in reference to an arrangement with God. Why would god have told Jacob that the sand of the sea cannot be numbered for multitude if that's not what he meant? As [grains of sand in the sea] is a subset of the set [all matter in existence], it follows that the totality of the matter in existence cannot be numbered for multitude. Is the implication here that Jacobs words were false?



The spirit of the law is that the children of families in America should not be forced to accept someone else's version of a creator. The study of evolution examines processes, and how those processes fit together. Claims as to the underlying metaphysical causes of those processes are something science is ill prepared to make. Thus, belief in evolutionary theory does not rule out the idea that evolution itself was caused by a some sort of a designer (it falls outside the realm of science, and by it's nature science cannot verify or falsify such metaphysical claims). ID seeks to answer this question, and in doing so places arbitrary limits on it's 'designer' entity. ID's claim amounts to the designer being unable to engineer it's system to produce results within a probability framework, the hand of the cdesigner is seen as gaps in what probability can explain. A truly omnipotent being would not require these gaps. ID forcres inferences about a creator/designer, where the study of evolution does not.


.

So, the processes that were supposedly designed by an omniscient, omnipotent, creator are not being disputed, only that the designer is able to use these processes in a larger coherent process? Again, the cdesigner of ID sounds like a different entity than the creator described in scripture (who is omnipotent and therefor capable of fitting these smaller processes into a larger mechanism).



Mischaracterize?

No, the draft said 'creationist', which in later versions was changed to 'ID proponents'. The discovery of the rare Cdesign Proponentsist fossil is a snapshot in time record of how "creation" was intentionally varied, and under the influence of selective pressure (constraint of the law), variants that did not contain the label 'creation' were more prosperous. ID obviously was designed, and from the record of it's design (Cdesign Proponentsist) we can infer some things about it's designer (chief among them that they changed 'Creationists' to 'Design Proponents'). The financial hardship was caused by the individuals who withheld information from the court.



If ID concepts were in fact based on the wisdom contained in the good book, the methodologies of the designer would be of interest to the ID researcher, not something to obfuscate and attempt to paint as discredited by confusing people who read their literature.

I would point to William Dembski as an example. He is rather ambiguous with many of his terms (specified complexity, design, etc.), and has many errors that those not accustomed to the methods he uses might not catch. Another example would be the '10^150 universal probability limit' seen on this very forum (most likely an alternate expression of Dembski's '10^-150'). Through misuse of esoteric concepts, un-vigilant (and even some of the vigilant!) readers are often confused.

Knowledge and understanding is promoted as valuable in scripture. Misuse of mathematics and logic are out of line with Biblical values (at least by my interpretation).



Evolution makes no inferences about the existence of a creator. Evolutionary theory can be incorporated into a Christian worldview. Evolutionary theory does not contradict the Bible, because it makes no metaphysical claims. ID on the other hand does, and the designer of ID can be shown to be different from the Creator in the book of Genesis.

ID does make inference to an attribute of the designer.

If design is to be inferred by the reasoning that chance and materialistic processes cannot account for biological diversity, it logically follows that the designer that has been inferred cannot achieve the build of the design using only the chance and materialistic process properties that it designed into the universe.

By inferring a designer from the supposed inadequacy of materialistic processes, it effectively rules out the possibility that the designer could have used strictly material processes. This is an inherent limitation of the power of a designer which has been inferred from ruling out material mechanism's capability of accounting for the origin of life. The claim that it couldn't happen that way implies that a designer couldn't have done it that way, and thus implies a limitation on the designer.

The God of Abraham is an all knowing, all powerful, eternal being who would be entirely capable of using strictly material mechanisms that he created to design and build (in short, to create) the wonders that we see. Any 'Designer' who is incapable of using strictly material mechanisms to build it's creatures is limited, and does not fit the description of the God of Abraham as described in the Bible.

In asking reason and proof of that which can only be known by faith, ID conjures up a lesser deity, an entity forced to justifying itself with reason and proof. A fundamentally limited being of restricted power, incapable of creating the world through any process which it so desires, constrained to exist in the gaps of human knowledge.

This begs the question of what the 'purpose' is. If we were talking about the purpose assigned to things by an omniscient being, we would be at a severe lack of ability to understand it's concept of 'purpose'. The claim that we are capable of understanding the 'purpose' an omniscient being intends is laughable.

Still, no matter how you cut it, if "back-loaded information" is the criteria we're using, a designer incapable of creating this "fitness function back-loaded with information" through material processes is limited. The basis for invoking this designer is a supposed insufficiency of material process. This rules out the ability of the 'cdesigner' to use strictly material processes to accomplish the task which is assumed impossible using material processes.

On the other hand, the Biblical creator has no limitations. The creator as described in the Bible is perfectly capable of back-loading information into fitness functions to drive evolutionary algorithms using only materialistic processes.

To infer that something is designed does not beg any questions.  It is not a necessary requirement that we understand the purpose of something to recognize that it is designed and does have some unknown purpose.


Once again perhaps a little more slowly:  ID does not place any restriction on the presumed designer.  ID does not identify any specific characteristics of the designer.  ID does not claim that a designer is incapable of accomplishing what you propose. 

ID does note that observed evolutionary processes do not produce new biological form and function, does not produce new biological information at sufficient rates to account for observed diversity, and is not able to account for formation of required new protein binding sites.  So ID suggests that a prospective designer did not use observed evolutionary processes to generate observed diversity (not saying the designer couldn't use them just that the designer didn't use them).  ID posits that the presumed designer used some other processes and whatever processes were used, it was intentional, it was planned, it was designed.


When a designer co-opts a material process to intentionally accomplish something, that is design. The ID premise notes that purely materialistic processes, which are 1. Necessity driven by a physical law or 2. unconstrained contingency - random chance or 3. constrained, unintentional contingency - chance constrained or modified by forms of necessity are material processes.  Any process that involves intention is design. 

ID does not declare that the presumed designer could not possibly have obscured the design intentions and hidden them in processes that appear to be materialistic.  ID does note that the designer did not use the evolutionary processes that adherents of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory claim accounts for observed diversity.


Right, but ID is not advocating any particular designer and does not assign any specific attributes to a designer.  Exclusive advocation for the Biblical creator and/or the Genesis narrative in America is known as "Creationism".  ID is not advocating Biblical creationism.

barney,  you are repeating points that have already been addressed.  See my previous response.  I recommend that in the future you read my post so you don't trip all over yourself.

ID offers a compelling premise:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it irreducible complexity or specified complexity or organized complexity.
Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.
Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display the features from premise 1.
Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit these features are likely to be designed.

It is surprising that people like illy and barney want to claim that this premise describes Biblical Creationism.