Quote:
ID started being proposed by those who honestly felt that a gunine study of the world around us leads to no other conclusion.

...

Quote:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.



That said, I'd argue that this statement is untrue, or specious, or disingenuous:

Quote:
most evolutions are well aware of the end-game that ID sets up and are going to argue against it, not on the merits of ID itself, but of the personal beliefs of its proponents


Let's assume for the sake of argument that that is the case (and I'm sure it is for some). Even if the evolutionists have a particular reason for arguing against it, facts don't lie. If the argument against it is sound, then the bias of the person presenting the argument is irrelevant.

On the other hand, ID proponents are constantly lying. For example, ID's supposed smoking gun is the bombardier beetle, which has the amazing ability to squirt steam from its rear end as a defense mechanism. Actual greater-than-100C-water steam. Pretty amazing. It's the ID proponents' argument that this is so amazing and unique that it would have to have been created by hands-on ID. Of course, the problem with that argument is that it's in no way unique, and, in fact, is a good example of evolution. Other beetles have various portions of the mechanism that the bombardier beetle has, from the bladder, to the production of various subsets of the chemicals needed to produce that exothermic reaction, to, uh, other stuff that I can't remember now. But when presented with that evidence, the ID proponent's response is usually to ignore it.

Disproving the requirement of ID in one case doesn't mean that it's disproved in all cases, but it's the intentional ignorance of facts that is worrisome. ID proponents claim that it is also a science with a different viewpoint, but a scientist who ignores facts is no scientist at all.