Sorry. I guess I misspoke.
My understanding is that ID states that evolution is a process with a purposeful creator behind it.
Which is fine. At times, I've wanted to believe that myself.
If that's what makes sense to you, then I have no right to question that.
But ID as a "scientific theory" is an attempt to explain away evolution as a product of some sort of unprovable superior being. Fundamentally speaking, it's not science.
I can respect faith. I certainly respect your right to it. And you can be a scientist and a person of faith at the same time.
But faith is not a scientific theory.
As for actual scientific theories... Descartes' meditations show us that we can't even prove that the physical world exists. All I can say for sure is that, at this moment, as I write this, something is happening. Some being (which I'll name "Paul") is thinking. Therefore, though I can't be sure of his exact form and position, I know that, at this moment, "Paul" exists.
Anything beyond that is guesswork. Everything you learn in science class is a theory, which could be changed or disproven at any point by new evidence or replaced by an entirely new theory.
What they teach in science class is our current best guess. As guesses go, evolution is a darned good one, with a lot of solid evidence to support it.
You can call it into question. You can bring up new evidence. Point out potential contradictions and pitfalls. That's science.
But there's a movement to have ID recognized as not only a scientific theory but as one of equal validity.
What I'm saying is... It's not. It's faith. Faith has its place, and it's an important one. But that place does not fall under the heading of "scientific theory."
Paul
