That's the same kind of response put forth by the likes of the perpetual motion and zero point energy crackpots as well. And you're jumping from bullshit argument to bullshit argument. First it's that many scientists support ID, so it already has widespread support in the scientific community. Then when it's shown those scientists don't actually do research in the relevant scientific areas it's that there are plenty of others that do do research and publish in those areas. Then when it's shown that there are only a small handful of published articles and even those are quite sketchy it's that all the research is actually being excluded by scientific groupthink. So what's it going to be next? Seriously, it's like a child that keeps claiming there's a monster under his bed, then every time you go look under the bed with him he comes up with a different reason why there's nothing there but still insists there really was something hiding there. Children can be humored through these kinds of things for a while, but there comes a time when people just need to grow up.
By the way, creationism has been around for what? Over a thousand years? Just how much time do you want before recognizing that the lack of inroads isn't due to external forces excluding the "research" but the lack of quality of the "research" itself?

I just have to chime in on something Faithful said pretty early in this thread. Which is pointless, since this person doesn't read this thread anymore, but it is still something I just have to put out there. (might be so elementary to you guys that it goes without saying, but I seldom speak up in debates like this, so I don't know)
The Christian God, is he not omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? In order to fully be that, he must know everything that will happen. Which means, to put it as a famous Doctor did, we are all puppets on a string. We have no free will, because everything that happens have already been decided by the fact that God knows it will happen.
That little tidbit about him being almighty is what makes the whole thing crash down. If he is, he would know that the Humans would turn out the way we did. He would know whether we redeem ourself or not. He would, in short, know everything.
So why should we maintain civility? If we do something, anything, we just did what we was supposed to do. Everything from the moment you are born to the day you die have already been decided for you. You have no saying in the matter.
While being "free" from the religious point of view, not believing in a man in the sky who made it all... now we are talking free will. I know that whatever I do today will solely be based on me. If I choose to skip breakfast then that was my choice. It was not a certainty that I would, because some all-knowing being already knew I would skip it. I chose it.
So talking about how free will is something you only get when believing in a God is... well, stupid. I'm sorry, but that is what it is. It's ludicrous even.
And about purpose in life... yeah. We who don't believe in God cannot have a purpose. We just wander around aimlessly....
Seriously? If you need a religion in order to have some purpose in life, then you are a sheep.
My purpose in life is to enjoy it. Yeah, I am that egoistic. I do what I can to enjoy life, because it is short and the only get one. Which is why I am so glad I do not believe in any deity. I am free to have fun. Free to enjoy everything without thinking about an afterlife. I'm not saying I do things that would send me to Hell, other than pre-marital sex and other minor "sins". I'm not a killer or anything. But I don't have to worry about what God thinks about what I am doing. Not that I would anyway, because I would understand that we have no free will.
There are two things that helped me to open my eyes to the world, and how we should just enjoy it. One is a band, the other one is a stand-up comedian. Tool has several songs which, to me, boils down to the beauty of it all. Even if the song might be about something else, the structure of the song speaks to me in other ways. Like Lateralus, with its Fibonacci based structure.
Then we have Bill Hicks, may he rest in peace. This bit sums it all up, and I wish everyone had to view that once, and really think about it.
In short, enjoy life. Just... enjoy it.

Yeah but you still shouldn't skip breakfast, nutritionists and breakfast cereal advertising both agree that its the most important meal of the day!
There's very little that can't be summed up by Bill Hicks.

Haha! I won't, and I never do :P Was just the easiest example since I am in the process of deciding when I should bother to make myself some. Being unemployed means you have to try and make work other ways, like making a chore out of making breakfast :P
True, yet no-one have mentioned him in this thread until now I think!
Anyway, I'll let you debaters carry on. I'm not much of a debater myself, but I will follow this. It is pretty interesting.

^ Listen to the smart Norwegian.
And go watch Bill Hicks, seriously. I know he's marketed as a stand-up comedian. What he really was was a stand-up prophet. Don't fucking waste your time with Ricky Gervais or whatever.
Bill. Hicks.
Tool are an awesome, awesome band. Metal for the enlightened. Nobody has ever done it better.

Ah, I didn't notice you where Norwegian until now.
The fact that you know Bill Hicks enough to know what you know, and that you also like Tool means you are awesome. Which I guess must mean that Norwegians are awesome. And we are. We really are.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you completely. I gave you a starting point - not the end all be all of scientific reasearch on ID. Like I said in my origonal post anyone with an interest and the time to do the reasearch can find the information. I also must say it is a very closed minded attitude that dismisses the "external forces" that do exist in this area. The government grant "cash cow" that supports 90+% of the "scientific research" done in this area is heavily focused on keeping the status quo. Look at a small recent example: the global warming debacle. If you think for one minute that scientists who depend upon the status quo and keeping the money flowing for these projects will not do anything to keep it so you are fooling yourself. Thanks for the discussion.

What's your point? How is this relevant to anything at all? Except further cementing your own crackpot tendencies?
Do you have incontroversible scientific proof that global warming is a "debacle", as opposed to the weak-minded opinions of politicians and people with every bit as much of an agenda as you suggest in your apparent defense?
In short, are you capable of fielding a valid argument, or are you just going to pick at straws until hell freezes over?

You need to take a breath. You missed the point. I was talking about the Global Warming E-Mail Debacle. The e-mail exchange that suggest dubius "scientific" practices at best.

ID? Seriously? I remember the last debate I got into regarding that. They were reduced to YOU'LL BURN IN HELL IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE by the end of it. Sad. People need to learn when to let go.

Good ol determinism vs. Metaphysical Libertarianism read some Thomas Hobbes and form ur own opinions or maybe they were formed for u long b4 u were ever born thats the real question how can we ever kno if what we believe is truly a belief that we came to of our own free will. Its a heavy subject and one not easily grasped entirely. As for me I consider myself Agnostic though as they say there are no atheists in a fox hole, and when in tight spots I'm no different. Better to have the elephant inside ur text pissn out then outside ur tent pissing in.

Anyone with the interest and time can also find information on how the moon landing was a hoax, who was really behind Kennedy's assassination, and how various organizations have been suppressing the existence of perpetual motion technology. But unless you particularly like reading conspiracy theories such information is absolutely worthless. The peer-review system is there as a filter to weed out unscientific work and obviously flawed research, so that those of us who are looking to read actual scientific research don't have to waste our time sifting through mountains of garbage that's trying to masquerade as science. Yet after this filter is applied ID makes a truly abysmal showing, as I covered in my previous post. Put forth a hypothesis that makes testable, falsifiable predictions, with experimentals that others can repeat, and conclusions supported by the data gathered and it's not particularly difficult to get published (I have several papers to my name just from my time in undergrad and two years of masters work). However, the ID crowd just seems to be unable or unwilling to do this.
First off, the majority of research funding actually comes from private sources (mostly by industry). The two main government organizations responsible for funding research in the US are the NIH and the NSF. The NIH mainly focuses on biomedical research, and grants total up to around $25 billion each year, which only accounts for just under 30% of the total biomedical research funding. The NSF basically is responsible for all the non-medical areas of science funding, but with an annual budget of only around $6 billion it barely makes a dent compared to NIH funding. The rest of the funding is all from industry and private foundations. Moving on...
Scientists don't make names for themselves or bring in large amounts of funding by maintaining the status quo, they do so by challenging current theories (but with carefully conducted research that's followed by logical conclusions, not by shooting their mouths off then scrambling to find any scrap of evidence they can claim supports their wild conjectures). And the biggest breakthroughs typically have little initial funding and face fierce opposition, but gain acceptance despite this based on the merits of the research done. Evolution itself became the accepted theory it is now in the face to incredibly strong opposition (much of that from those who actually held a creationist viewpoint at the time), and Darwin's initial research (while on the Beagle) was pretty much all self-funded. Kepler's revolutionary work on planetary motion was basically done in his spare time while helping Brahe gather data, and also faced significant initial opposition until people tested the predictions his theories made and found them to be spot on. Hell, Newtonian mechanics was overturned by a patent clerk who was bad at math and basically just conducted thought experiments in his spare time.
Additionally, there are groups out there devoted specifically to funding and supporting creationism/ID "research". For instance, the Discovery Institute had donated about $3.5 million to people purportedly doing ID research, although interestingly despite the Discovery Institute's claims of wanting to support the science behind ID the amount put towards research grants is actually less that 10% of their budget, with the lion's share going towards PR campaigns and political lobbying (rather telling of how they actually see the whole matter). Going back to Darwin's time and before there was also far more support for anyone who wanted to try to prove creationism, from both political and religious bodies, as well as from private patrons. Yet despite all that time and available resources here where stand today, with the creationism/ID crowd still unable to produce any quality, compelling research to support their position. Instead we just get political maneuvering, PR campaigns, and whenever anyone asks for actual research just lots of whining about how they're just being picked on by everyone and thus don't have any kind of credible research to make their case, but the science really does support their position, honest! It's like a badly written farce.

Yes - and anyone with the time and interest can find Porn Sites and Chat Rooms and even Game Forums but they have nothing to do with the discussion. Stop trying to shift the focus here. If you care to know then you can and if you choose not to than you can as well. Trying to throw the ID scientific community into the same boat as moon landing hoax's is a fately flawed argument. Oh we can't believe them because they are a bunch of nuts is not a valid argument anymore - so stop using it - it doesn't work and makes you look silly. I know what the peer-review system is for and there is peer-reviewed work from the ID community. If you do not like how they are reviewed or the amount of reviewed work that "may" be a valid argument.
So what I am hearing here is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 Billion from the Government and yet even more from the Private Sector. How is it possable to complain about the measly 3.5 Million from the Discovery Institute. WOW. I would offer a hypothesis that can be tested. How about looking at the ratio of dollars and the ratio of peer-reviewed articles. Do you think there may be a high corelllation between them. Do you not think that the Evolutionists have PR campaigns and lobbyists? Lets be fair here. Stop throwing up arguments that can be made on both sides of the isle. Evolution is a theory as is ID and no one is asking you to stop supporting whichever you choose. However, what is being asked is that ID be given the chance to compete, and it is definately starting to. I would go so far as to say that ID is in the same boat as, Darwin's initial research (while on the Beagle) and Kepler's revolutionary work on planetary motion. Given the time and research I believe ID will prove to be a better Theory that fits the known facts.

Sorry to hear that. No one will ever burrn in hell for not believing in Intelligent Design. In fact hell was never ment to have a single person in it. Its very clear from the Bible that hell was created for Satan and his fallen angel followers.

That seems to be the cornerstone of the whole ID movement.
Heh that kind of reminds me of a place I used to pass on the bus out to uni: "The college of metaphysical practices". Every time I saw the sign which advertised their tarot 'services', I had to suppress the urge to leap off the bus and beat them savagely whilst lecturing them about misrepresenting educational institutions