Actually, the Intelligent Design people have raised an excellent general question, which evolution theorists have not as yet fully answered for every instance. Broadly speaking, the question is this: If a living system is extremely complex; if we are proposing that RANDOM MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION are the ONLY mechanisms by which that living system could possibly have come into being; and if we assume that this process occurred over millions of years, in small incremental steps -- Don't we have to assume that every single one of those small incremental steps, TAKEN BY ITSELF, had "survival value?" Have we really proven such a thing yet? Or is this still something that scientists are "working on" proving? I'll comment that if any of the small incremental changes did not have survival value, it would also have had fairly low chances of staying around very long--therefore, fairly low chances of being "built upon" by the next step in the sequence.
To get specific--We now know that there is considerable chemical complexity in the structure of living things. For example, proteins, the main structural component of living cells, are, in essence, polymers of up to SEVERAL HUNDRED amino acids, which have to be arranged in an EXACT SEQUENCE in order to give the protein molecule the shape it needs to fulfill its function. In a complex living thing, we have not only to account for the appearance of individual types of protein molecules, but also account for the fact that in some cases, a whole series of very specific enzymes (proteins) must work in a very specific order in order to accomplish a function--such as metabolizing sugar, clotting mammalian blood, etc.
对于那些相信全能的、有人格的上帝是可能存在的人来说，这样一个上帝的行为似乎也有可能补充了随机突变和自然选择，成为引导进化的力量。我承认，要从科学上证明或否定这种可能性并不容易。但我认为，绝对禁止在高中生物课上提到这一点(作为一种“逻辑可能性”)将是一种遗憾——当然，还包括教授孩子们标准的进化论。
By the way--the comment on the show implying that if we allow the teaching of Intelligent Design, we increase the risk of dying of bird flu is totally bogus. Almost all advocates of Intelligent Design (as opposed to the discredited "Creation Science") are asking that this theory be presented IN ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF standard evolutionary theory. And they recognize the modern-day recorded instances of "evolution" within species, such as development of microbial resistance to antibiotics, development of mutant virus strains, etc.

人们早就认识到，科学的最好定义是它处理思想的方法，而不是它们的内容。我同意，这是一个重要的区别，需要牢记在心——特别是当我们考虑到科学是如何向公众推广的，以及科学是如何在学校教授的。
但这并不排除可以从科学方法的性质推断出的科学内容的特征的存在。波普尔的可证伪性标准就是这样一个，你会对此提出异议。但我认为，你坚持认为波普尔指的是可证伪性是通过某些“单一关键观察”(暗示这种观察在某种意义上是结构简单的)，这是对波普尔的伤害。原子观测的概念很难定义，一旦我们接受了复合观测，那么任何观测的组合本身也算作观测。有了这样的理解，波普尔测试是有效的。不能通过观察来证伪的陈述是不科学的。
But of course the converse of Popper's thesis is neither claimed nor true, so it is not a test for establishing statements as statements of science but rather as statements of non-science, and to prove that something *is* science requires, as you point out, an analysis of the process and attitude with which it is handled by its advocates.

对于Lois Herring的评论，我想say that if any *one* of the incremental changes she refers to can be shown not to have been (or been genetically linked to) a survival advantage, then indeed the theory of evolution as currently understood "goes down" (or at least "back to the shop for a redesign"). But "can be shown not to" is not the same as "has not been shown to", so lack of explanation does not falsify the theory.
With regard to the introduction of other "logical possibilities", there are infinitely many that we could mention if we wanted to. But the *scientific* process involves seeking the *minimal* set of assumptions needed to explain the observations, and the theory of evolution by natural selection basically says that none are needed beyond those of fundamental physics. The time for introducing an intelligent designer or other additional concepts will come when a step is found which is inconsistent with the predictions of current theory, but as yet that has not happened and so we "have no need of that hypothesis".

Thanks for kicking off a stimulating discussion, Peter. While the scientific approach to a hypothesis is to ?expose it to observation?, very often what we see is not the thing hypothesized, but some secondary effect. For instance, absent a time machine, the big bang will remain forever unobserved, nevertheless we presently see the predicted afterglow and the expansion of the universe to support the theory. Black holes, by their very blackness defy detection, but we can witness the intense escape of radiation as stars are engulfed by the hypothesized phenomenon.
So, from what is observable, we may infer the existence of something that may never be seen. This seems to be the position of those promoting a designing intelligence behind the natural order, that the apparent design we observe in nature is more consistent with the products of intelligence, rather than the blind forces of nature that shape mountains and the patterns of snowflakes. Daniel Dennett?s use of the words ?clever? and ?brilliant? to describe the fruits of natural selection, betrays the difficulty in explaining the intricate design in nature without smuggling intelligence in through the back door. Whatever the contributions of a life affirming intelligence in the past, there can be little doubt that a life threatening intelligence is having an enormous impact in reshaping the earth today. Intelligent?Design is all too terribly true.
There may be more in common between science and religion than is usually realized. Science has its metaphysical side, with ideas such as string theory and multi-verse notions that appear plausible, but remain beyond empirical confirmation. At the same time, spirituality poses testable notions such as forgiveness and suspending judgment that can be tried in the laboratory of living experience. In each domain, faith and reason play important roles. Science becomes pernicious when its assumptions (i.e. faith) go unseen and unquestioned. Likewise, religion errs when it makes truth claims about the world that cannot be squared with the data. And often there are questions, such as ?when is a fetus a human being??, that seem easily answerable one way or the other by belief , but do not submit as easily to experiment and observation.
琼斯法官阐述了一个颇受质疑的流行科学观点，即科学为所观察到的现象寻找自然原因。这回避了什么是自然的问题?全球变暖是自然现象还是非自然现象?当智能机构进入画面时，一些超越纯粹自然力量发挥作用的力量就变成了因果关系。例如，物理学足以解释明尼苏达法兹(Minnesota Fats)一记大棒击球后球的运动，但引导主球的意图目前还不能用物理定律来解释。虽然我们确实经常将随机力量发挥作用的设计概念叠加在一起，但反过来也可能是正确的，我们在无脑过程中投入了一种聪明?和才华?他们无法拥有。
从另一个角度来看，任何超越时间和空间界限的事物都可以对物理世界产生影响，这似乎是合理的吗?有些人相信数学来自柏拉图式的天堂，有人可能会说，如果世界缺乏先知?要想揭开那个天堂的秘密，我们的星球就会和今天的样子大不相同。还有一些简单的事实，它们的发现改变了世界。件事?爱因斯坦所设想的物质和能量之间的关系，导致了人类对原子能的利用和释放。但是，如果那个东西?如果没有发现，历史肯定会在上个世纪以不同的方式展开。智力是否可以被理解为一种独立于物质和能量之外的属性，这是有争议的。然而，缺乏智能的实体表现为一种方式，而拥有智能的实体表现为另一种方式。
A final reason to question the prohibition on entertaining causes which transcend the temporal realm, is that to do so presupposes the nature of reality and serves to force data into an interpretation that may stem from a false premise. The ?scientific way of handling ideas? need not be bound to a materialistic philosophy of reality, but can serve equally well to make rigorous any philosophical disposition that lends itself to reason and experiment.

Lois Herring和Alan Cooper的评论都是基于对进化论的误解。甚至达尔文也不认为自然选择是进化的唯一机制。当代进化理论包括诸如迁移、突变(不仅被视为选择的素材，而且被视为自身改变的动因)和随机遗传漂变等机制。

Roberta Millstein在上面的评论似乎(也许是无意的)假设变异是选择的另一种选择。但是选择和变异并不是进化的替代方法。相反，选择作用于变异(变异本身可能有许多来源)，从而导致种群的进化。
Nonetheless, on first reading of Roberta's comment I was inclined to agree that, at least with regard to genetic drift, I may have overlooked something.
Of course over the short term it is possible to confuse a random fluctuation with an actual drift, which would not require any explanation in terms of survival advantage. But I take Roberta's suggestion as something more substantial.
I was led to wonder whether the random variation of a genome might lead to an actual trend in the characteristics of a population that is not tied to any survival advantage for the population, and in fact I can see that that is indeed conceivable. For example, some chemical afinity between genetic components might lead to a trend in the genome towards bringing those components into more frequent proximity - which might then result in some visible consequence for the population.
但是，进一步思考这个特殊的例子，我可以想象适应所涉及的化学反应确实对应着一种生存优势——也许不是对生物体，而是对基因组本身。
可能还有其他的漂变机制，不能被解释为任何层次的选择的结果，但我听到它们会感到惊讶(因为你可以从上面的“延伸”看到，我准备相当自由地对待我可能描述为生存优势的选择过程)。
但如果我个人对进化论的理解必须“回到商店重新设计”，那么就我而言，那就更好了!
So, thank you Roberta for the challenge.

抱歉，我的帖子有点简短。让我看看我能不能解释得更透彻一点。
我同意，艾伦，你可以把突变看成是产生选择作用的变异。然而，当代群体遗传学也将突变视为进化本身的原因。可以这样想:当你在种群中引入突变时，你改变了种群中的基因频率。由于种群遗传学理论通常将进化定义为基因频率的变化，突变本身就成为了进化的一个原因(尽管是一个非常微弱的原因)。
The other thing I regretted after my post was not to mention to all the other possible ways that nonadaptive (meaning "neutral") evolution could occur. However, probably the best thing I could do here is to point to Gould and Lewontin's well-read (if controversial) essay:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/history/spandrel.shtml- section 5 is the relevant section to this discussion.

感谢罗伯塔。
I think I've seen a review of that article somewhere but hadn't ever had the opportunity to read it through before. It does, to some extent re-adjust, if not totally re-design, my so-called "understanding" of evolution (though I would plead "not guilty" to the charge of having ever been a totally feature-by-feature adaptationist, and I might be inclined to find a selection-based explanation for what Gould and Lewontin identify as "adaptation without selection").
I also should acknowledge that, in my response to Lois Herring, I neglected to make clear that the changes I intended to appeal to selection for were only those not explained by random effects such as mutation and sample frequency fluctuation.

我将试着回到这个核心问题:智能设计是否应该在学校教授。
我认为，一个经常被忽视，或者可能被避免的问题，即在学校里应该在哪里教授ID，这才是问题的核心。假设我们已经得出结论，ID可以拥有与现代教育的所有经典组成部分相同的学术价值，因此应该教给我们的孩子;那么，它应该在科学课堂上讲授还是在另一个学术领域讲授?然后我们就到了ID是否真的是科学的问题。我希望这个问题的答案是显而易见的“不”。
In order to qualify as science, ID's assertions must be provable or disprovable through measurable, repeatable, empirical observation. In this area it simply falls short. It is not a matter of wether or not you believe the assertions that ID makes, but rather it is the fact that you cannot prove or disprove them that rules ID out as science. ID asserts that since structures in nature look so fantastic that they could only have been created by some kind of "intelligence" requires you to be able to prove or disprove the existence of that "intelligence." One can see how that could prove... problematic.
本我不是科学。然而，到目前为止，我同意《智能设计》提出的问题确实有学术价值，因此在学校也有一席之地。我个人认为本我属于神学范畴，或者可能属于哲学范畴(因为本我的支持者会抗议，声称本我不是神创论)。也许是“我们来自哪里?”本我的支持者不愿意承认本我在今天的化身中不是科学的事实，但它仍然可以在科学课堂之外的学校中找到归宿，这引发了一个动机的问题。如果他们如此坚定地相信这是科学，他们应该遵循科学的规则并进行研究，在同行评议期刊上发表文章，并将他们的论点和证据提交给科学界的审查。科学是在实验室里解决的，不是在法庭上。
I'm going to editorialize a little more here.
As a scientist, I find the common argument against evolution and for ID repugnant. It is commonly argued that evolution is not a "fact" but is JUST a "theory." ID then is simply an opposing "theory" which, they argue should be taught as an alternative. The problem I have with this is the manipulation of words in a clear attempt to persuade the lay. In common vernacular, the use of the word 'theory' denotes a supposition, a guess, an idea; no evidence required. In the scientific vernacular however, theory is used to denote a hypothesis that has been tested and validated by the scientific method. We must remember that in scientific terms, what the lay man would call a theory, is actually a hypothesis. However proponents of ID will mix words and twist meaning in order to make the theory of evolution seem to be little more than a guess, when in fact it has been so rigorously tested that it is the lay equivalent of fact. The fact that the argument for ID in the science classroom often comes down to this kind of semantic jousting is absurd and points to clear political maneuvering instead of rigorous science.

首先，我想说的是，我不相信大多数反对智能设计的人真的知道这个理论需要什么。在这个论点中，任何提及或出现“创造论”或“创造科学”的词都应该被禁止。智能设计论甚至与神创论都不沾边。Michael Behe和William Dembski写了一些关于智能设计的书，展示了这个理论的复杂的数学和我敢说的科学复杂性。我还想知道有什么证据可以证明达尔文的进化论是错误的?科学理论应该是可以被证实或被否定的。即使没有什么能推翻它，还有什么能呢?我相信支持者会把任何证据放在某个地方，作为研究另一种有机体的一步。还有什么证实了达尔文的进化论?化石记录? Fruit flies? I am not quite sure how iron clad that confirmation is.
Even Darwin's finches were a hoax. Anyway I am not saying that dawinism is flat out false I just think that it is lacking with it's mechanisms. I do not believe
for a second that chance mutation and natural selection
have dictated every living organism in the world.
这有一个问题。Intelligent design
mathematically and scientifically attempts to fill in those gaps and I believe they do a good job doing
so.
With all that said do I think that ID should be taught in science classrooms? Not really. Not yet at least.
I think even more problematic is how Darwinism is taught dogmatically. I do not think it is fair to present that theory as if it were true. Say what you like about what a theory is or what it should be the fact is that darwinism is not necessarily true. In that light I believe that fact should be made undoubtedly clear.
I do think however that ID has a little ways to go until
it could be taught in a science class, in philosophy,
or a special topics elective or something maybe but
我相信他们会成功的。最后我想说的是，我不认为达尔文主义是严谨科学本身的一个例子，所以也许本我应该从那些固执地坚持达尔文主义的科学家那里得到一些自由。

我想对科里上面提到的补充一点。科里说ID永远不能被认为是科学，因为它不能被经验验证，这是绝对正确的。物理科学和生物科学本质上是完全经验主义的。科学寻求对现象的自然主义解释，“自然主义”被定义为在相同的条件下，由于“正常”原因而重复发生的现象。如果你把一个球扔到50英尺高的空中，它总会落下来。你可以测试它，测量它，重复它，用与经典物理相关的理论解释它。如果你知道它的质量、速度和方向等信息，你就可以预测它每次着陆的位置(除非刮大风!)
By definition, ID cannot be accounted for empirically. ID posits a force that is external to naturalistic causes, i.e., some "intelligent" force (or forces) that have power over natural phenomena and yet is not a natural phenomenon itself. ID is the watchmaker that knows how to put the pieces together and can do for the pieces what the pieces could never do for themselves.
The problem with science is that all it can see are the pieces. The watchmaker is invisible to the eyes of science. Even if science cannot figure out how the pieces got together (the so-called "gaps" in evolution), it could never posit the watchmaker. Science would have to say that it can't figure out how the pieces got together YET, but it's going to keep on working on the problem. Maybe it will find the solution and maybe it won't.
但是，信仰或猜想的眼睛可以看到钟表匠或ID。此外，ID并不是不合理的，尽管它不能被“理性”所证明。这并不科学。如果有人认为科学对世界和宇宙如何形成的解释不合理(例如，大爆炸、进化等)，那么就可以合理地假设钟表制造者。但仅仅因为它是“合理的”，并不意味着它是“科学的”。"
Part of the problem is the incredible and seemingly unending success of science over the past 300 years or so. Being "scientific" is desireable because it seems to make one's conclusions certain. But science is a fairly limited domain. It may be able to inform things like ethics, epistemology, ontology, etc., but it hardly has the final say here. For most of the really important things in life (friendship, love, meaning, and college football), science is fairly impotent and takes a back seat to theology, philosophy, etc.
底线是，科学和信仰(本我信仰最终是一种信仰系统)应该在晚上各自睡在不同的床上，我们不应该让科学从信仰的床上偷走被子。

To Ian:
你会问什么能证明达尔文的进化论是错误的?很多，很多已经有了。科学的特征之一是，当对理论提出新的更好的解释时，它就会进化。我们今天的进化论在各个方面都与达尔文提出的理论不同。我想到的一个例子是斯蒂芬·j·古尔德(Stephen J. Gould)在1972年提出的“间断均衡”。它的基本观点是，进化在小群体中迅速发生，然后是一段停滞期。这与达尔文的渐进主义理论直接冲突，后者认为进化是在很长一段时间内持续发生的。间断平衡解释了为什么在进化记录中会有“空白”。
Now, you may ask, "Well, what can disprove this new and improved theory of evolution?" And I would answer, probably nothing short of God himself coming down and explaining to us how he did it (Why doesn't he do this anymore? He use to do it all the time according to the bible.) It's like the theory of gravity. Until someone can show that everytime they throw a ball off a cliff, it flies upward, or hovers there, instead of downward, the theory of gravity will not be disproven. I hope that you would agree that this would more than likely NEVER happen. But until it does, science, you, me, and everything living on this planet will have to accept gravity as true.
我相信像贝希这样的人，如果他们愿意的话，可以提出某种数学证明，证明引力理论是如何缺乏的。毕竟，“折磨数据的时间足够长，它会承认任何事情”，然而，一个人在纸上写的和在现实中实际显示的是不同的事情。反对进化论者有数百万年的证据来反对他们。没有人说这是不可能的，毕竟科学从来没有声称有任何“证据”，但就像反驳重力一样，反驳进化是一场艰苦的战斗。

It really amazes me that we even have this debate anymore. People dress ID up in mathematical complexities and arcane sounding scientific details to give more sciency appearance. But no matter what you wrap it up in the core of ID is faith not science. Faith that a superior being or beings created life on Earth. Faith is a science stopper: once you take something on faith there is no more need for investigation scientific or otherwise.
至于进化的证据，在我们周围有如此多的丰富和可见的证据，以至于我们很容易忘记它的存在。我们可以在宏观和微观尺度上操纵和驾驭促进进化的力量。在宏观层面上，我们通过选择性育种培育出了狗的品种，我们还培育出了西兰花、卷心菜和花椰菜等农作物的新品种。在微观层面上，我们创造了疫苗和有用的细菌。我们可以观察到进化的力量对我们的指责，就像耐药性细菌的发展或禽流感跨物种传播给人类一样。
进化论符合这些关于生命的事实。它甚至预测了发生这种变化的遗传学和DNA机制的发现。一个或多个最高创造者的假设解释不了什么，也预测不了什么。它只会产生更多的问题，这些问题只能用信仰来回答，比如，为什么一个至高无上的造物主会创造这样一个动态系统，让物种在生存中来来去去，而他们本可以创造一个静态不变的系统，具有同等或更高的完美和复杂性?
Ian Turner asked what proof could disprove Darwinian evolution. Garrett Peters pointed out that the theory of evolution has moved on since Darwin. Mr. Peters said God coming down and telling us personally that he created us would disprove evolutionary theory. I would like to add immortal angels walking through the streets turning homosexuals to pillars of salt, and the discovery "Product of Apha-Centuri Terrestrial Eugenics Corporation" labels on the back of our necks, to the list of possible disproofs of the theory of evolution. You don't need to research obscure academic papers to prove the theory of evolution. You just have to open your eyes and see the observable phenomena around you.
I got a chuckle out of Lois Herrings rationalization that ID is different than creation science because its proponents advocate it as alternative to evolutionary theory not a substitute. Apparently teaching creation science along with evolutionary theory is what makes it ID.

Re: ID
Concisely, (in the words of Dennett) "Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything." (and in its current form, never will.)
Consequently, it shouldn't be in a science class. Maybe a class about socio-political propaganda?
Re: The nature of science.
PGS, it seems that you are almost describing the "Lakatosian" model of science; considered by many to be an improvement upon Popper's core notion of falsificationism. If unfamiliar, as I was until recently, check Lakatos at Wiki for a little background.

"To me, Popper was onto the right general idea, but he simplified the story too much. He also tried to express his test for science in terms of a test applied to the content of scientific hypotheses themselves. I think it is better to start from the idea that there is a distinctively scientific way of handling ideas and hypotheses."
That is precisely Popper's point. The simplification applied to the logic of falsification but Popper was always aware that falsification in practice is problematic. It is a crude simplification to call Popper's theory "falsificationism" because that simply represents the most obvious difference from the verificationism of the positivists. The point is to adopt the method (or atttitude) of critical appraisal with a view to forming critical preferences that can change in the light of new evidence and new arguments.
This overview may help.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/introrandi.html

POPPER, EINSTEIN AND INCONSISTENT THEORIES
Karl Popper: "...we can argue that it would be a highly improbable coincidence if a theory like Einstein's could correctly predict very precise measurements not predicted by its predecessors unless there is 'some truth' in it."
波普尔应该已经验证了爱因斯坦理论的内在逻辑。如果理论是不一致的，它可以产生正确的预测。最初爱因斯坦引入了一个错误的前提(光速与光源的速度无关)，然后据此推导出奇迹(时间膨胀、长度收缩等)，从而成为创造奇迹的神，但最终又重新引入了真正的前提(光速确实取决于光源的速度)，并得到了正确的预测(如频移因子)。这种不一致性比普通的错误理论危险得多，因为它不可逆转地破坏了科学中的理性。See more in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th...
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

INCOMMENSURABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC LOGIC AND FORMAL LOGIC
Imagine a theoretician (e.g. Einstein) who has obtained the result Y and is deified for that. He also claims he has deduced Y from the premise X (and possibly other premises) which is some assertion about physical reality (e.g. the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source). How should fellows theoreticians react? If they are realists (in the philosophical sense), they should try to find out if X is true or false - if it is false, Y should be abandoned. If they are rationalists, they should check the deductive path leading from X to Y - if the deduction is invalid, Y should be abandoned.
Needless to say, the critical attitude described above presupposes some courage. Unfortunately, theoreticians and philosophers of science are not courageous in this way. They believe in the pessimistic induction - since theories in the past have been rejected as false, all theories, both past and future, are false, including the one harboring the deduction of Y from X. They also believe in the thesis of increasing verisimilitude - in the historically generated sequence the theories are increasing in verisimilitude, that is, in the degree to which they are approximately true. Accordingly, since the theory harboring the deduction of Y from X is the last in a sequence, it is relatively the truest one. Then why should theoreticians and philosophers of science care about details such as the truth or falsehood of X or the validity of the deductive path leading from X to Y? Isn't it much more profitable to sing dithyrambs and worship at the portrait of the author of the truest theory?
In so far as logic undoubtedly belongs to the heart of theoretical science, the established tradition based on the abuse or neglect of logic can be named "Postscientism". This tradition was born in 1850 when Clausius INVALIDLY deduced "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" from "Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold". But why have logicians failed to rectify or even notice mistakes in scientific logic?
In formal logic conditionals (inferences, derivations) are tautologies. This implies that the consequent can only be a NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION (I call NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION one which does not participate in the formula of the antecedent) if the antecedent is an inconsistency. Examples:
[p,(p->q)]->q ; the consequent q is NOT A NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION
(p,not-p)->q ; the consequent q is a new atomic proposition but THE ANTECEDENT IS AN INCONSISTENCY
在应用于演绎理论(如相对论、热力学)的科学逻辑中，所有的结果都是新的原子命题。也就是说，所有条件的类型都是(p,q)->r。因此，形式逻辑中的条件集合与科学逻辑中的条件集合之间不可能存在重叠。See more in
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Garett Peters write: "An example that comes to mind is the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" proposed by Stephen J. Gould in 1972"
He didn't.
正如斯蒂芬·古尔德经常承认的那样，奈尔斯·埃尔德雷奇做到了。

As someone from an IT and industrial systems design background, I have always found it impossible to believe the theory of evolution. I long ago concluded that life is vastly too complex to have come about by chance mutations and blind natural selection, and that the universe is far too unified to have been organized by chance, luck, or a committee.
Where for the love of me, where would natural selection get the overall broad perspective necessary to evolve a multitude of highly diverse lifeforms, at different rates, at different times, or not at all (stasis), to finally finish up with a fine tuned co-dependent environment and fine tuned eco-systems. Natural selection would need all the attributes of deity. Moreover, why would natural selection preserve and hard wire the "religious" mindset into the vast proportion of humanity, if nothing existed beyond materialism.
Let's face reality, entropy and the 2nd law tells us the Cosmos running down, and therefore dependent, with neither the capacity to wind itself up, or bring itself into being. Thus we have either an infinite dependent regression, forever, or a non-dependent self-existing first cause, call it what you will. All of which makes a self-existing first cause both a philosophical and scientific necessity.
我发现整个讨论是否不ID是科学的市场。首先，一个可以被智慧理解的宇宙，必然有一个潜在的智慧。事实上，所有的科学都基于这样一个事实:宇宙有一种潜在的规律性、可预测性和秩序，数学可以有效地应用于此。没有这一基本原则，甚至不可能进行科学研究，没有这一原则，经验与科学方法的整个基础就崩溃了。驱逐智能的本我原则就是破坏科学本身。
Secondly, every field of science ultimately has to face the fact that there is no "naturalistic" explanation for any of the broader realities, be it the origin of the universe, or even the origin and existence of natural law itself. To argue that natural law must be the "gatekeeper" to define what is scientific, is to ignore the fact that the gatekeeper itself cannot be explained by natural processes alone. Thus we have something (natural law) that cannot be explained by natural law used to keep out all other real but unexplained criteria out, God included. This would include the origin and existence of the cosmological constants and a multitude of other realities. Including matter, light, and energy which ultimately have no naturalistic answer, and yet these make science work.
So guys, lets face reality. ID is foundational to science, and naturalism and Darwinism just won't do the trick. At least, not for me.

It takes no effort at all to look up the history of "ID" nor does it take any intelligence to see that its simply creationism mk3 and has nothing to offer science. IT IS NOT science and never was intended to be. Simply put these people see science as the mother of all evils and athiest by conspiracy and have set out to control science and education. It is a literalist fundamental quasi religious group that if allowed to succeed will damage education. Anyone that supports or sees any validity in ID is either 1. a creationist 2. lazy.
The minute you allow any such idea any validity you stop science....why spend huge sums on research when you can simply say "ID did it" it explains nothing and doesn't need to its FAITH and the only reference manual you need is a Bible

Making repeated unsustainable assertions about ID will not get you anywhere. Protest and scream as you will, the reality is that all of science functions on the reality that we live in a universe that has regularity and order to the point that science can predict results.
The application of reason, logic and intelligence can be applied in science because we live in a universe that clearly manifests regularity and intelligence. Science would come to a standstill if this was not an accepted and established fact.
The concept of intelligent design, namely, that the universe manifests intelligence and causal design, is a foundational scientific reality. What test would you need to apply to prove that the foundational principles on which all of science and technology operates are valid. The very success of science itself testifies that this underlying assumption about the intelligent nature of the universe is an established fact. Stop living in denial.

The universe has always existed, it has no beginning or no end, it is pure energy as everything we see irradiates to the space vacuum, making the vacuum not empty as they tell us but full of energy, energy that continues the process of creation.