ID theorists are saying that the scientific evidence, rather than being insufficient or unimportant, points directly to intelligent intervention in the development of life.
Prove it. Give me an outline of the experiment that you will conduct to back up your hypothesis that complexity is explainable only through the direct intervention of a higher being. You can't, can you? There IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE. And there would be no way to test it if you had it.
If you want to use scientific terminology, ID is a hypothesis, but an untestable one.
What the ID pushers don't understand is that evolution, or physics, or any other science isn't a refutation of the existence of a deity. It does refute the literal story of Creation found in B'reishiet, which a lot of people find blasphemous and disturbing. So why do we use the scientific model?
BECAUSE IT WORKS. There is a process that allows us to posit a question, and then outline an experiment that will let us test that question. The results of an experiment can prove or disprove that question, although there is no guarantee that it will. Creationism (lets call it what it is, OK?) doesn't allow the question or the experiment--because the answer always boils down to "Because G-d says so" or "Because that is what G-d did (and how dare you question the word or actions of G-d!)". The questions that the scientific method allows us mere humans to ask have allowed us to generate electricity, travel into space, and create medicines that cure and prevent once-deadly diseases. You can question the moral implications of those actions or results; that is where morality and the Bible excel.
How many Christian denominations are there, Fistful? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Why? Because even the New Testament, King James translation, is untestable--so that anytime even one person interprets a passage or edict differently than someone else, a schism occurs. Someone goes in a new direction. If the Bible were testable there would be only one reasonable denomination of Christianity (and that concedes the existence of
unreasonable ones). If it were provable, consistently, I wouldn't be Jewish, most likely. Moslems might still exist, at least until it (or any religion developed after Christ, for that matter) either proved or disproved the validity of the Koran. If the Koran were valid, and the events that Mohammed wrote of were provable, all you Christians would be some sort of Moslem.
But none of it is testable or provable, not even my own most deeply held beliefs. I'm OK with that; I don't expect or require faith and science to agree with each other. They are different realms. Honestly, Creation Science is an admission of failure, isn't it, because it says that you are forced to copy scientific method in order that religion stay relevant. I'm not a practicing Jew, but it is still a very important facet of my life, and it guides the choices I make. I don't NEED Judaism to agree with, and be confirmed by, every action or event that occurs in the material world. I don't NEED religion to be everything, nor do I need science to uphold my most deeply held beliefs. Science covers events; religion covers the right actions we take or undertake in the world around us. I'm not troubled by the fossil record, or the bones of Lucy. It all points to something greater than myself or what I can know. I have no doubt whatsoever about the existence of G-d--I even have events and anecdotal evidence of His existence. None of which, BTW, would do anything to disprove
your own most cherished beliefs, and none of which are impossible by the standards of physical science. And none of which diminishes what happened, at least not to me.
