The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

Chips_ & NotReady,

Lets try to focus on what the argument is in a simple and abstract way. Let say I have a theory that says that organism evolve from one another, thus a1 turns into a2 which turns into a3..etc. until a100 (the current end of this chain). Now the same thing is theorised to happen for b1 to b100 and c1 to c100 etc,... For some sequences there is strong evidence (Fossil record is complete say for b3,b4,b7 and for e40,e41 to e49, etc..) and the mechanism can be experienced, for a few links at least, in laboratories conditions with fast reproducing organisms. We have now a mechanism and a theory. The theory says that there are 100 intermediate steps between a1 and a100 (it's only a theory) there are records of a1, a11, a21, a31, a41, a51.. to a 91 and a100). There are big gaps, in fact only 10% of the theory is evidenced. But we know that the mechanism is possible for a few links in other classifications. Now, over the next 100 years, we discover many other new fossils, in the correct sequence of geological layers that start confirming what were up till now gaps. We know have 90% of the gaps covered, only for 10% have we found no evidence yet. I would suspect that the gaps left out in no way weaken the validity of the theory.

The theory effectively has been and is being tested...

Note also that we have said nothing about god or lack of god. We haven't even addressed what happen before a1 or before the big bang. We are not concerned with that since we have no way of testing whatever theory we may have. It is outside the realm of science, and quite rightly so.

Now what ID supporters would like to do, is to insinuate the concept of god as an agent for the gaps. This is not science, it cannot be proven and belongs to a completely different domain than science does, similarly to astrology or many other things.

It is totally disingenuous to say that ID is not a religious/political issue. It is a calculated effort at undermining the foundation of what has been the advancement of mankind, science. It is the irrational sphere of mankind trying to usurp the authority of the rational. It should be fought and opposed with all possible vigour to ensure we don't regress to the dark ages of humanity or even worse.

Teach ID wherever, but not in, or as science. That is the point. Science stays out of the way of god/no god issue and religion stays well out of science. Regarding an atheist position rationale. They do exists also. My rejection of the god concept rests in morality and logic issues, not in science. Science makes my postion easier by at least not contradicting it.

I hope this clarifies the argument that I have and explain my criticism of Mr Behe et al... I think they are obscurantists.

Regarding where to teach ID, again, if not in religious and bible classes, I don't know, and I don't care as long as it is not in science.