Intelegizzle Dizizzle

Everyone keeps throwing in their two cents about ID. Here are mine:

ID offers little in the way of giving a 'how things happened'. ID, if taught, belongs in philosophy over science (at least the way I understand it now). I'm gonna try an analogy here... In the Scientific community we often try to explain the things we don't understand by applying priciples that we do understand. Example: We do see the a process of 'natural selection' which accounts for zebras thriving in africa and not in europe. We see adaption like birds developing better beaks for breaking nuts, or incects becoming resistant to pesticides. We don't observe animals evolving into new animals. We infer this with the fossil record, but convieniently , or unfortunatly, that type of evolution-- 'macro'evolution as it has been termed, is not observable. The process takes SOOOOO long that science will have to be observing for the next million years to document such a case (based on the current evolutionary models). HOwever, our DNA is 96% or more the same as a chimpanzee's -- our 'closest' relative. And nearly all DNA in all living things has some high percentage similarity. This certainly can help the case for macro-evolution. After all, we understand and observe the micro evolutions. Seems perfectly reasonable to apply said knowledge to what we can't observe.
-- I knew this would take a while --
Example 2: Waves require a medium to travel through. Sound, pressure... etc. for a long time every wave we could measure required a medium to travel through. Except light. We could suck the ever-loving everything out of a tube of glass and shine a light right through it. Sound wouldn't go anywhere, but light went right on through. Well, this perplexed us because we knew that light was a electro-magnetic wave. We knew that waves require a medium to travel through... so we came up with 'aether'. Aether was a theoretical mystery fluid that filled all of space and was unable to be detected, but it let us sleep better at night knowing that it allowed for the propagation of light through space and such. Aether stuck around for a long time. If you look, you can find old physics texts which tell you all about aether physics. How it makes science work the way we expect. Only, there is no aether. Some guys (michealson and morley) were clever enough to devise an experiment in which to measure the speed of light very precicely at different times of year when the earth was at different locations in space so that the aether, haveing some prefered direction, could be detected. Their results were that light speed is constant etc. The scientific comminity fought with the absense of aether for some time. We now don't think that light needs a medium to travel through. We now think lots of things differently than we did 100 years ago. And 100 Years from now, we'll think differently.
ID as proposed in 'darwins black box'(Behe) suggest that based on what we (science) now understand is happening at the bio-chemical level, darwinian evolution is highly improbable. His claims are based on an understanding of the model of darwinian evolution and bio-chemical processes. Its not like his argument is "science is hard. God made it!" His argument is (if I may) Darwinian evolution appears to be unable to explain what is going on in the former 'black box' of living cells. SO... using evidence to refute evolution is NOT (neccessarily) a good argument for ID. It shouldn't make anyone get too defensive. Either his claims hold wieght, or they don't. No one should be afraid of the truth.