I enjoyed your post on ID. I’m still researching it and reading up on it. I think the debate is fascinating though.

I respectfully take two issues with your assessment.

1) ID is not a Christian belief. Labeling it so makes it easier to dismiss, although
many non-believers embrace it too including atheist Oxford professor Antony Flew.

2) I do believe it’s able to be proven or disproven on the grounds complexity or “irreducible complexity.”

Irreducibly complex systems function only as a sum of their parts and fail individually if any of these parts are removed. IDer’s argue that these systems by definition could not have evolved into a functioning unit from non-functioning lesser systems.

Strict evolutionists contend that everthing is able to be broken down into singular elements and conversely, built up over time through adaptation, survival of fittest, evolution, etc… into highly complex systems. Less design, more like billions and billions of beta tests resulting in systems that survive.

It’s going to be an interesting debate. I think ID must pass thsi academic and scientific scrutiny of complexity before it belongs anywhere inside the classroom. However, if it does stand up, it should be considered as supplemental to evolutionary theory at least.