My suggestion is to read widely on both sides of the topic and draw your own conclusions. I would never dissuade anyone from reading the works of the other side with an open mind. I think you’ll find that all of the alleged debunkings of ID arguments simply are nothing of the sort. But you are perfectly free to draw your own conclusions. One of the great asymmetries of this whole debate is that it seems that Darwinists will say or do anything to try to convince people to ignore the real-McCoy ID arguments. My attitude is the exact opposite. Read all the Gould, Mayr, Ayala, Dawkins, Dennet, etc, books you want. ID can easily stand on its own two feet. It’s an eminently sensible and rationally justifiable position. To date, and in my last ten years of following the discussion, the Darwinist response has been by and large, simply an embarrassment. They have failed to even properly represent the position they “argue” so vociferously against, let alone provide satisfactory counterpoints. I’ve recently been reading “The Design Of Life”. It’s an excellent place to start.

It’s disturbing to me when I read the comments of the reviews.
For instance, under James F. Lemire’s review, S. Allen says:

“How in the world can people still be fooled by “irreducible complexity”? EVERY example of a system that Behe or any other creationist has offered up has been shown to be reducible. The flagellum, the cillia, the blood clotting cascade, etc. Plus they continue to ignore all of the scientific data that basically walks you through how a complex system can arise via gradual steps. Behe himself was exposed as a fool when he was presented with this kind of scientific information on the stand in Dover right after claiming it didn’t exist. IC is turning from a bad hypothesis into a group delusion IMO.”

In my limited time to research, I’ve not come across this kind of rebutting “scientific information”. Is this just hand-waving or what?
My concern is for people with even less investment than myself, who see this stuff and take it as gold. (Though I suppose the internet isn’t a very good place if you expect to only read reliable information).

Thanks for responses/reading recommendations.

They are also pretty consistent in another way. They generally have poor critical reading skills. It’s is amazing how fast Corey jumped on what he thought you said–not only absent any arguable text–but despite you, yourself having made a conscious effort to avoid that connotation.

I speak from many hundreds of net discussions where I saw the same thing play out again and again. More materialists and “skeptics” are preemptive in telling you want you or somebody else meant, despite any modicum of critical reading skills.

I’ve often thought that this is what attracts them to believe in the universe through the lens of status quo Science. Simple, black and white, no elaborations, no difficulties, no words to steer it or obscure it. (Which is why in speaking of these people and their instant dogma about what was said, I put skeptics in quotes.) Nice clear defined lines, get rid of religion and heal the world, blah, blah, blah…

At least we know this blog has some Darwinist lurker readership.

Darwinists, what are you so afraid of? Your fear is showing to the world.

Sending off books to cohorts for positive reviews. Boilerplate reviews of books they’ve never read. Gaming the system by voting up friendly reviews and voting down critical reviews. Such are the tactics that must be employed to prop up their money-making enterprise in the face of an assault from true science.

A bunch of new negative reviews just popped up and in a matter of hours have received hundreds of positive votes.

I just saw. Amazing. Just when you think humans cannot behave any less rationally, they surprise you.

Darwinists, what are you so afraid of? Your fear is showing to the world.

Just wait until the public is made aware of your irrational behavior, it will backfire so badly.