Reply #49: The problem with ID is that

[rogerashton]

those who oppose evolution claim that ID is contrary to evolution. It is not.

Many of the posts on this thread have focused on the anthropic principle, the idea that the conditions for the existence of life are very improbable and so the intervention of a will of some kind is a reasonable inference. I find that principle persuasive myself, since all of the counterarguments I can follow turn out to involve probablistic fallacies -- they do not accord with Bayes' Law. But the issue has to do with the conditions for life -- and therefore indeed the conditions necessary for evolution to take place. So one who affirms the anthropic principle does not deny evolution, but, presumably, affirms it.

Here's another point. Ask a biologist and she will tell you (ask my wife, in particular, and she will tell you) that there is nothing in evolutionary thinking that explains a tendency toward increasing complexity of organisms and the biosphere. Therefore, no such tendency exists. (But when we observe the history of life, we do observe such a tendency.)

It's too bad that belief contrary to reason and evidence is so common among human beings. Probably a product of our evolution -- believing whatever the local tribe believes was probably a survival trait for tens of thousands of years.