[Bored chemist]

"However, the evidence also supports ID if one so chooses to agree with the theory."
The evidence also supports the hypotheses that the universe was created by the fairies at the bottom of my garden or the flying spaghetti monster.
However one of the theories gets round the problem of "Where did the complexity come from?".

Evolution doesn't need an explanation for God but ID does. Evolution is, therefore, a more complete theory.
Theories that explain more are generally though of as better theories.

[lyner]

Two different interpretations of the same fact aren't necessarily equally valid.

[dentstudent]

Indeed much evidence supports evolution via natural selection.  However, the evidence also supports ID if one so chooses to agree with the theory.

Evolution is a Theory.
ID is at best a hypothesis.

A theory is what a hypothesis becomes after extensive testing. It is a well-substantiated explanation of the phenomenon.

A hypothesis is an inchoat explanation which is used as the basis for testing. It is a question that is open and requires investigation.

There is no evidence for ID. It is very unlikely, therefore, to ever become theory.

[yor_on]

ID is a good joke.
Religion is an even better:)

And if there is a God about He/She gotta have a strange sense of humor.

----------

Thinking about it..
Maybe I should have wrote 'Organized religion is an even better' instead?
As there are good decent people out there that believes in a personal God.
And it's not them I phreak out on:)

[lyner]

And if there is a God about He/She gotta have a strange sense of humor.

Poor ol' God. Why has 'he' got to have any sex? Will he need to reproduce sexually?

[science_guy]

Sometimes I wonder...

anyway, one cannot really state that there are several inefficient systems in nature, when he doesn't completely understand everything about nature.  Every little tweak in a single creature's genetic structure would have large and lasting effects in the local ecosystem if it was to be adopted.  How do we know that these inefficient systems are only their to provide a cushion for human error?

That is another important subject on the matter: Human error.  Many of the examples you cited were of inefficient systems that were actually designed, but by humans.

one of the main things of religion is the principle of free will, and that all problems are borne of human error, not of an Intelligent Designer.

I am always open to proof otherwise, yet have never been convinced against it.

[bryan]

No, but there could be an unintelligent designer.
One who thought food and air should enter the body using the same hole creating a risk of choking. Also that babies' heads and penises should exit or enter the body using the same hole. Oh sorry free will explains the last one doesn't it? The designer is angry because one day a girl ate the wrong piece of fruit. 

[lyner]

The idea of an intelligent designer is attractive and a lot easier to cope with than the idea of there not being one. There is no intellectual effort required because it puts everything not understood into the care of a superior being (a father figure). I can quite see how such an attitude is the result of the very evolution which the Creationsts reject. It is the ultimate 'instinctive' behaviour which gives a species an excellent chance of surviving.
Evolutionary theories could have only appeared once the scientific attitude was developed.
Of course they are rejected by many people; they are far too hard and the evidence is very tenuous and subtle, compared with many other modern scientific ideas.