Darwinism itself is a religion, if you'll pardon my saying so. The idea that some guy dead a hundred and fifty years ago has the last word on the nature of the universe is a curious belief.
I have looked at some of the more intelligent writings on ID theory, and it makes scientific sense. My problems with Darwinism are basically scientific, not religous. And I can't help observing that Darwinists want a monopoly, and refuse to listen to any contrary evidence. Evidence, not religious doctrine. They won't permit it.
No doubt some religious people and fruitcakes support ID theory for reasons other than scientific. So what? That doesn't invalidate the findings. There are plenty of fruitcakes on the Darwinist side, too, including the Social Darwinists, the Eugenists, and the Nazis. That in itself doesn't necessarily mean that Darwin was wrong. What makes him wrong is the extreme scientific improbability of his general theory.
If that were true would calling it a religion make it a negative thing?
No it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory.
"I have looked at some of the more intelligent writings on ID theory, and it makes scientific sense."
ID is not science, it abandons science.
ID states and believes that, "the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the world." That is not science, that is religion.
Proof:
ID uses the laws of physics to make some calculation. The ID guy swears his logic is OK and his math likewise. The output of his calculation says, "the result of the calculation can't explain the observaitons."
There are then 2 remaining possibilities, because he swears his model is good:
1) The model is missing some knowledge and understanding.
2) The model is right, the physics are 100% correct, that's all the physics there is, and there's an intelligent force. A fifth arbitrary force that science can neither observe, examine, nor quantify.
Take your choice:
1.) The laws of physics are not sufficient and you abandon science to inject an IDer to arbitrarily desribe and make claims about the 5th force.
or
Stick with science and continue.
"My problems with Darwinism are basically scientific, not religous... What makes him wrong is the extreme scientific improbability of his general theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Ir is quite advanced in both knowledge and understanding from Darwin. There is no improbability that it happened. The probability is that evolution did and continues to happen.
Its only "improbable" if you already have your mind made up in a different direction.
Otherwise, there is a heap of evidence supporting the theory. There is far more evidence now than when Darwin published it. DNA was unknown, and so far the genome projects are all supporting the theory of evolution, making it more probable, not less probable.