[Gorduz]

You were right that he admits that a sort I.D. can have some merit (a scienentist can not dismiss theories). But so far the evidence for this is not in any way conclusive enough fot it to be considered of as more than an idea, or hypothesis. And in no way is the evidence for I.D. conclusive enough to be taken into textbooks yet.

But when most people talk about I.D. they link the designer to some supernatural being (i.e. God), thats what is wrong. If you support I.D. by some other natural being that we don't know about sure, I'm not a biologist, and if you are then I will listen to your theory with respect. But if the designer is supposed to be a supernatural being, then it has nothing to do with science(perhaps theology).

Now as said I.D. could be considered in some way a hypothesis but until the supporters stop mixing religion(pr. def. beliving in something unprovable) into it, they will not be taken serously by their scientific peers.

and well said Kapt Z