What??!! Please explain your universe. In my universe, we have laws of motion and mass and gravity but we don't understand them fully, don't know their origin, and have scientists who say that the basic laws "just are" which is pretty much what religious people say about God.

The difference is that physical laws are causally connected with observation, and they make predictions and explain phenomena.

An explanation is a solution to a puzzle that makes the pieces of the puzzle logically necessary. Without any set of rules, there's no logical necessity, and, hence, no explanation.

God theories don't ever make predictions and they explain nothing. They are consistent with whatever you see, no matter what you see. What is the difference between saying "God explains X" and "I can't explain X"

This gets down to the reason why jmcd is correct, and ID isn't explanatory. ID doesn't make any of what we observe a logical necessity. If it did, it would be making a prediction. No prediction, no explanation.

Such a search would be inherently unscientific because you would be looking for forces or occurences that could never be explained in any scientific way. Another problem with such a search is that everything we know about the universe tells us that it operates according to physical laws or rules.

I cannot understand why having an intelligent designer in any way negates that the universe operates according to laws and rules. Nor can we be sure what can or cannot be explained in a scientific way. And further, if God herself can never be apprehended by science, that does not mean that clues to her existence and activities will not be found. The only question is, how well hidden?

Perhaps life may be an exception, but to assume so requires an irrational leap of belief.

Do you think your car goes against the laws of nature? Was its design and manufacture done by interrupting the laws of nature? And yet, seeing that the answer is no, could the car have evolved itself?

In what way is it an irrational leap of faith to believe that the origin of life can only come from some prior life?

IC may be right, but I find it very unlikely and cannot understand how one would arrive at such a conclusion. It is counter to everything we know about the universe.

That depends on what universe you live in. It is mostly a matter of perception, interpretation, understanding. What kind of universe do you live in? Why do you say you come to a design inference philosophically, yet find it irrational in every way? Philosophy must be rational.

My problem with ID is that I don't see its predictive or explanatory power.

You don't see it. Have a little faith in Truth! Isn't truth the only thing that matters? And if ID is true, don't you suppose that the explanatory power will come?

[Thus] this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Today we know this to be false.

What??!! Please explain your universe. In my universe, we have laws of motion and mass and gravity but we don't understand them fully, don't know their origin, and have scientists who say that the basic laws "just are" which is pretty much what religious people say about God.

I might do that, if I get more chances to talk with him. (He has a Bachelor's degree from MIT [in some science field], and a PhD in Pharmacology [if I remember correctly] from Johns Hopkins University.)

"I've considered going back to school to study bioinformatics and evolutionary computation in order to pursue some ideas regarding ID."

You should go. I'd love to see those ideas fleshed out, and there's no reason to make your ID-friendly views common knowledge.

And Douglas, you should have told the professor about this place. The more the merrier.

"I think the Dover decision along with the general hostility in academia is chilling. I've considered going back to school to study bioinformatics and evolutionary computation in order to pursue some ideas regarding ID. Given the environment, it would probably be a mistake to do so. (And I'm an agnostic!)"

In case you weren't aware, I am currently pursuing a Master of Science in Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (otherwise known as "What?") at a university in South Bend, Indiana (I just started - I've actually only completed ONE master's course so far). That university just recently (within the past two years, I believe) began a program in Informatics, and just last semester hired their first professor of Bioinformatics. This semester will be the first time (I'm pretty sure) a Bioinformatics course will have been taught at the university. Interesting stuff, bioinformatics.

Anyway, I happened to notice the textbooks for the Bioinformatics course while I was hunting down my textbooks for this coming semester - it was the first I was aware that such a course was to be offered. So, I hunted down one of the Informatics professors, and talked with him a bit about bioinformatics. He took me to his office, and was showing me some relevant books, when I noticed a coffee mug on one of his shelves with a verse from the Book of Proverbs. I mentioned the mug to him, and he shared that for a number of years he had worked on typesetting various Bible translations, and we talked for awhile about the Bible, and Creation/Evolution. He does NOT believe in Common Ancestry, nor Evolution.

Basically, I just wanted to point out that the field is not completely overrun by those who would persecute scientists who don't believe in Evolution. Those who wouldn't do so are, of course, few and far between, but apparently they are there. And there'd be MORE, if you decided to join their ranks, you know (that is, you yourself would add at least ONE to their number).

(This is a fun game! Anyone else wanna give it a shot? Just how many theories of "supernatural causation" are their in natural science?!)

I'm sorry, but what was the test again? I didn't read that part. The test that is "quick," and "unambiguous." I have been searching really hard for such a test for nearly five years now. (Sorry, IDers, but I have.) Please, I'm begging you, please don't tell me it's a "legal" or "philosophical" test. I am a scientist.