I've followed the political debacle in Pennsylvania as closely as I have any news story (which is to say not very).  I find the debate fascinating, but I think I've resisted following it too closely because the whole situation makes my blood boil.  I try not to think about it.  Here's my stance, to make sure I am CRYSTAL CLEAR up front:

Evolution is not a theory.  It is a stone cold fact.  Over 150 years and mountains of empirical data should leave no doubt.  Your God is a theory.  And a flimsy one at that.

There ends, I hope, my emotional involvement in the discussion.  'Intelltigent Design', plain and simple, is not a scientific theory.  It doesn't meet the criteria.  It may find an appropriate home in sociology classes as an odd movement in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, but I think that's all it is.  To put it bluntly:  any scientific theory which follows scientific method must do a couple of things.  First, it must make predictions about the world around us.  Second, those predictions must be empirically testable using methods known to science.  Third, the results of those empirical tests must be repeatable.  ID fails on all three.  It is not science.  It's not even close.

The basic premise of ID is that the natural world (and specifically life and I would imagine even more specifically, HUMAN life) is too complex, too fine tuned and too 'just right' to be explained by random chance alone.  Concepts like 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity' are introduced to try to demonstrate that the natural world is too beautifully constructed to have happened by random chance.  Proponents of ID state that since this is the case, one can infer that the natural world happened not by random chance but at the will of some intelligent causal agent.  (Google William Dembski, Michael Behe or the Discovery Institute to get a much more detailed explanation of the concept.  I won't even deign to call it a theory here.)  In a nutshell, that's it.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory which states that living organisms undergo gradual changes by means of natural selection.  That's it.  Until Watson and Crick discovered DNA in the 50's, nobody was even really sure of the METHOD by which organisms passed traits from one generation to the next.  But even before that fateful experiment, scientists knew that SOMEHOW it worked.

Here's the basic difference between the two:  One can infer predictions and design testable, repeatable experiments based on the theory of evolution.  For instance...scientists began to speculate that, due to evolution, it was likely that certain strains of microbes would eventually develop resistance to antibiotics.  They stated that if evolution and natural selection works the way the theory says they should, bacteria should EVENTUALLY develop resistant strains to medicines.  Here's how it works:  A population of bacteria naturally has genetic variations amongst the cells.  Mutations.  It's the method by which evolution should work, if it's right.  If one introduces an environmental factor that affects survivability (like penicillin), evolution states that those who are most fit to survive will do so and pass those genetic traits on to their offspring.  The scientists reasoned that if evolution was right, the there would eventually (over trillions of cells and minor mutations and thousands upon thousands of generations of bacteria) come a mutation which would allow a bacterium to survive penicillin.  So...they started waiting.  And guess what?  Penicillin is all but useless now because nearly all the microbes it was previously effective against have mutated into strains that penicillin does not affect.  Evolution made predictions (1) that were empirically testable (2) and repeatable (3).  Don't believe they're repeatable?  Ask any health care provider how many different antibiotics are slowly going the way of penicillin.  It's repeatable.

Intelligent Design does not make predictions.  In essence, the only thing ID does is point out gaps in our knowledge and flaws in our understanding.  It basically says that since we don't understand the processes which could have brought something into existence, it implies that there is an intelligent causal agent behind it all who is, by definition, unknowable.  It states that the intelligent designer is abstract and unknowable.  It then follows that the intelligent designer's existence (if they're unknowable) is also untestable.  By definition, then, that disqualifies ID as a scientific theory.  And when one really thinks about it, just pointing out that we happen to be dumb in some areas is not really an accomplishment.  ID gives us no tools with which to further our understanding of the world around us.  It offers no solutions, and only points out flaws.  It's not helpful, and it's not science.  Every cornerstone of ID is rife with logical flaws and grevious misunderstandings of the empirical evidence they claim actually supports their idea.

One last point:  I fail to see how the theory of evolution denies God.  It seems to me that the reason people like the idea of ID is because it gives hope that God still has a place, that their faith is not misplaced.  Why do so many people feel the need to deny evolution?  I think because it undercuts the cornerstones of their lives:  faith.  I don't think it needs to be that way.  Most people who embrace creationism or ID (creationism-LITE) do so because of a literal interpretation of the Bible, and most specifically, the book of Genesis and the creation story.  I've never understood how literal interpretation of the Bible was a good idea.  Most people (even the fundamentalist zealots) would agree that stoning adulterers is an idea whose time has passed.  But, if you take certain passages of the Bible literally, I feel you have to take it ALL literally.  If you pick and choose, I would need to see criteria for why one chooses to interpret ONE part literally and ANOTHER part symbolically.  And those criteria would need to be consistent.  I think if people are truly honest about the scripture they hold so dear, I think they'd find that the VAST majority of it is symbolic.  The creation story is a great story, don't get me wrong, but I think it was, at best, a metaphor.  That being the case, I don't see why God and evolution can't be reconciled.  To me, evolution is a sublimely elegant solution.  Its beauty and simplicity (unlike many scientific theories, like quanutm theory, most children can understand the basics of evolution) hint more at a divine power than anything ID proponents can throw at me.  Why couldn't the concepts of science be the WAY by which God created the Earth?  Why couldn't the phrase 'Let there be light' usher in the Big Bang?  Why couldn't volcanic activity be the way by which God created the seas and the air?

In the 1600's, a guy named Copernicus proved mathematically that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and nearly got killed for it.  When the theologians could no longer supress the knowledge or deny it, it was suggested that maybe God is like the ultimate clock designer.  Maybe God simply set the gears and springs in the specific way He wanted.  What if that's the case?  What if the entire universe is just God's giant domino board?  I'm agnostic and I don't know whether or not the Big Guy is up there, but I actually can't think of a more fitting tribute to God's majesty, power and omnipotence than watching the universe unfold in all its grandeur.  What if all it took to make this happen was one divine finger-flick to set the dominoes falling?  I actually think that's more impressive than the alternative.

And as a post script:  anyone who disagrees is welcome to post dissenting opinions.  ID proponents or evolution bashers are welcome to offer opinions.  But I ask this:  let them be constructive.  And don't be surprised when I systematically point out every logical flaw in your argument.  You cannot prove God exists (any more than the atheists can disprove him) and you cannot suddenly make ID legitimate science.  It cannot happen, and I would take GREAT joy in proving it to you.  Throw SETI and criminal forensics in my face.  I'll shoot it down.  Throw entropy and thermodynamics at me.  I'll show you that you don't understand the theories if you think they prove God. 

"With all thy getting, get understanding." 

All those big words just make me wonder how we ever got together... Although you and I think very much the same on topics like this you have a way of wording things so they actually make sense. I guess that's why I stick to superficial topics on my blog.

I'm a very strong believer in God but I don't for a second think that evolution is impossible. I think it's extremely possible for both to co-exist. My only disagreement with your eloquent post is that you think it's even necessary to prove God exists. I respect anyone's right to disbelief, but disbelieving doesn't make Him nonexistent. Why do "non-believers" (sorry don't have a better word) think proof is so darn necessary?

Hey Tara! Thanks for the comments. You know, one of the things I've ALWAYS respected about you is your ability to maintain your beliefs, and remain open minded about others'. You have no idea how much that simple trait means. To me, the need to know that God exists stems from my own pragmatic nature and the fact that I don't like it when people base morlas/laws/guidelines or suggestions for people to live their own lives based on something that can't be proven. Like gay marriage laws...I think the BASIS for those laws is entirely scripture based. I've seen no empirical evidence for their positions. If people think gay marriage is bad and want to ban it, I want to see proof. If God is all you have, then I think it's hard to say that the law is justified. As for faith, I fully accept the possibility that a testimony or the 'burning feeling' can constitute proof. I belive that strongly. I just haven't felt that for myself (despite many efforts). For believers, empirical data isn't necessary because they've already got their proof. That's fine with me. Just don't use that to try and control MY life. :) Thanks again for the comments! Ever since your discussion with Spencer on Kayla's blog, I've felt nothing but respect for you. Both your conviction and your tolerance are inspiring. o:)

I forgot to tell you that I'd never heard the final quote of your post and I LOVE it!! And also, appreciate your comment to my comments... I didn't know you could do that! Don't tell anyone in my family, but I voted against the gay marriage ban - one reason because I agree with your above statement. Wow, I think we're gonna be friends! ;)