I will just let all of you have the last word.

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
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:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ro 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

It is possible, I suppose, that some time in the future a legitimate science of biological intelligent design might arise, if for example humans succeed in developing synthetic lifeforms and start filling up the biosphere with them and their naturally evolving progeny. Or, further in the future, if alien biospheres are discovered, part of the search of ETI might include trying to determine if past alien civilizations left any discernable evidence of their existence in terms of alterations they may have made on their biosphere that might still be detectable millions or billions of years afterwards.

I’m fairly certain that if such a science develops, it will have no resemblance whatsoever to what current ID “theorists” are babbling about today. Indeed, the development of this future science will probably be hindered by the memory of today’s ID and the embarrassment it will generate whenever someone is trying to apply for a grant, or recruit graduate students, or something.

I mean “the modern evolutionary synthesis”, or neo-Darwinism, but not evolutionary biology as a whole, as some ongoing work concerns proposed non-Darwinian aspects of evolution.

ID proponents do one thing only. Look for gaps in our knowledge then fill that gap with “it’s too complicated so it’s magic”. We would fill in those gaps with or without them pointing out where specific gaps exist in our knowledge. They are merely getting in the way.

ID is not science by definition. Nor is it science in it’s application. Nor in it’s ideology and method.

Extraordinary. I think this is the first time I have ever seen ‘Copernicanism’ used as a disparaging epithet, since the 17th century at least.

Unintentionally, you have highlighted the big problem with ID, which is that it is rooted in dogma.

It might look like science is dogmatic too, but it isn’t. That’s not to say that scientists don’t dig their heels in. But after a while, when the defenders of the old theory die or retire, and the new theory is sufficiently powerful and has enough evidence to support it, then the old theory is generally supplanted. This can take a long time, as with Wegener’s theory of continental drift, which took nearly fifty years to accumulate sufficient evidence, or rapidly, as with General Relativity – published in 1915, tested in 1919.

Remember that Darwinism supplanted a number of much more unsatisfactory attempts to explain the origina and evolution of life on earth, including those rooted in religious dogma, which is where the current problems stem from: demarcation issues. But let’s be honest, if religious explanations held any true predictive power, they wouldn’t have been found so wanting as to need replacing. Ideology held back science in the form of the Catholic church in Galileo’s time (well, and it would keep doing so today if it had sufficient clout), just as ideology holds back so many talented Islamic academics today.

But it is true that there are issues, highlighted by ID proponents, with Darwinism, although the scientists do not treat these issues as ‘holing Darwinism below the waterline’, but instead as serious proving grounds for Darwinism. Some questions that still need to be addressed in evolutionary biology are how life originated on earth, whether it exists or has existed elsewhere, how species arise without strong geographical borders, and how human minds evolved. It is possible that Darwinism will be able to answer these questions, but I am willing to bet, on the basis of previous scientific advances, that if it can’t then what supplants it will look way, way, way more like Darwinism than anything resembling Intelligent Design. To throw Darwinism out now and go back to a religious-based explanation like ID would be like a farmer getting rid of his tractor and trying to work the 1,000 acre field with a plough pulled by a spacehopper.

And of course it isn’t without something that makes it scientifically plausible, like a very old alien spaceship with the blueprints for humans hanging from the drawing board, or something that supports something of the nature of Fred Hoyle’s ideas, but certainly not, when it is based on the projection of “appearances” that the scientific method will say are more plausibly going to be the result of law or probability. Even if “appearances” are indicative of some good physical reason that we’re not here by accident, the scientific method is going to say that a law of nature is still the most likely reason for it without an unfounded leap of faith that lacks the kind of supporting evidence that I previously mentioned.

But that’s not what bothers me, it’s this:

If by “science” you mean “Begin with your conclusion, rework the evidence to fit the premise, ignore evidence that does not fit the premise, and mock anyone who challenges you.”

But if by science you mean, ‘begin with your conclusion, (that we are here purely by the fate of random probabilities, rather than natural law), rework the evidence to fit, (automatically assume that the appearance of design that IDists often point to is of random or local nature, rather than natural law), ignore the plausibility for a natural law that the appearance carries because this appears to be an admission in favor of the creationists position, and then call everyone who suggests such a thing, a crackpot, or a troll or worse.’

Then I’d say that you’ve described your typical Copernicanism’ practicing left winged liberal scientist.

None of what I said is speculation.

All of it is historically recorded and proven.

All of it remains constant when both sides already *KNOW* the truth of it.

Which is why we have no complete theory.

1. Some intelligent design supporters are scientists who do good science.
Therefore Intelligent Design is compatible with science.

(If the NCSE can make this argument in regards religion being compatible with science then whats stopping us making the same argument about Intelligent Design?)

2. More seriously.
I think Intelligent Design is applicable to the science of archeology.
The major flaw with ID theory in regards biology is that they have no designer to point towards as the source of the design. In archaeology there is man – the only known intelligent designer.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that looking for signs of man made design is a useful way to approach the archaeological record of an unexplored site.

OK, both points are slightly away from the intended point of Intelligent Design and evolution (where it certainly is not compatible with science, in my view) but it just shows that you need to define your points very carefully on these questions or you unwittingly provide a lot of leeway for obtuse answers (such as the current accomodationist kerfuffle on ‘Thoughts from Kansas’).

you said As far as I am aware,

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you are not aware. Your comment demonstrates such a complete lack of awareness that it’s surprising that you were actually able to use complete sentences! Your comment demonstrates that evolution is not directional (upwards, ever upwards!) and that humans (at least in your case) do not occupy the pinnacle of perfection (fallen, or otherwise)!

The words don’t mean what you think they mean.