[MEGoody]

Then he has to explain who designed the designer

Why? Evolution theory doesn't attempt to explain origins.

[furball4paws]

ID does "explain" origins, so it has to answer that question.

[shuckmaster]

Then he has to explain who designed the designer Why? Evolution theory doesn't attempt to explain origins.

Evolution theory isn't on trial here. A charlatan psuedo-science called non religious "intelligent design" is on trial.

[b_sharp]

"Then he has to explain who designed the designer

"Why? Evolution theory doesn't attempt to explain origins.

Because ID is all about proving macro-evolution* (ME) wrong. If ID is able to show that we are designed and thus prove ME wrong then the same question must be asked of the designer. Either the designer was designed or they evolved. (The dichotomy is from the ID camp). Eventually either ID has to admit ME to be possible or admit that the designer is supernatural(God). If they admit that ME works, then their entire thrust to get ID into the schools because of the shortcomings of evolution is shown to be a lie. If they admit the designer is God, then this whole charade if ID not being religious is shown to be a lie.

Evolution on the other hand admits that it is limited to life and life only. The origin, although many scientists feel it does originate from abiogensis, is not a factor in determining whether or not man and other apes are related through a common ancestor or any other conclusion from evolution. *Even though some of the ID admit to an ancient Earth and a common ancestor, their entire IC and CSI is designed to prove that evolution is not able to produce cumulative changes that ultimately result in organisms being classed as members of higher taxa.