Obviously the theory does have problems with evolution.
Parts yes, but not like YECs.
"Unlike William A. Dembski [21] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[22] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe."
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. (Coyne 1996)"
"http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_philosophicalobjectionsresponse.htm"
Behe replies with a response dealing with falsifying information, not that Coyne is wrong in his assumption on Behe's fusion of both Evolution and Creation.
Behe has never come out and said that TOE is entirely false. And Behe's model does allow for Darwinian natural selection and random genetic drift, two important aspects of TOE.
Just had to throw an insult in didn't you. :roll:
IDers often like to say that ID is correct and TOE is wrong without realizing that ID doesn't reject all of evolution and allows for key aspects of it to occur.
Not according to the dictionary:
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. -
Intelligent design definition | Dictionary.com
Well it looks like I hit the nail firmly on the head.
From a
purely superficial view yes. Fundamentally, ID is no more then Animism. What we cannot explain now, such as the commonly used eye example is proof of a designer.
What is interesting is that the vast majority of people backing ID are fundamental Christians and Muslims.