This game was designed and created by several people, not just one man with one belief. The game itself as mentioned has taken from both beliefs, However, it has to largely be an ID game, because as the author points out, a game based on true evolution would be pretty boring you would die a million times just from random bad luck, your creature would then if he survived past your initial cell design stage, would take on a life of its own beyond your control. This said, I of course see part of my own world view in this... The middle ground. I believe ID and Evolution are both possible. The hanging dead horse is a perfect example of why this game is anti-ID in my head. There is really very little room for messing around with a species it has adapted and been pushed into a certain evolution fueled direction for a reason. Just messing around creating random creatures is not going to be very successful. However, from the ID perspective, it could be possible to create species that could survive. In the end, who cares? It does not make one bit of difference scientifically if ID is true or evolution is true. We have much more important things we could focus that energy and money on like research on aids, cancer, solutions for pain, and millions of other diseases and deformities that people suffer from everyday. Nobody is suffering from ID disease, or Evolutionist disorder its just a petty argument between two groups that like to act like children.

"There is really very little room for messing around with a species it has adapted and been pushed into a certain evolution fueled direction for a reason." >>A 'little room for messing around' is all that's needed if it improves the odds one lives long enough to reproduce will be selected for, isn't it? The only other thing that's needed is enough lot of time for lots of different changes produced by 'messing around' to add up.

It does not make one bit of difference scientifically if ID is true or evolution is true.

Only of those ideas is actually science. ID boils down using "God did it" as explanation for anything that's too complex for Behe to understand. Yes, I know ID proponents often say, "it could have been Martians", but find me one who deep down, doesn't really believe it was God.

Since you cannot prove scientifically whether God exists or not, saying "God did it" does not yield a testable hypothesis. If you can't produce a testable hypothesis, then you aren't doing science. Therefore, ID is not science.

Greatbear452, you are walking very thin ice, hear me out before you call me and ID nutcase. Evolution in its most basic term does exist. Successful traits are passed on, because that animal survives to breed. However, we cannot prove that evolution is responsible for life on earth either. The truth is there is no way to test and see if life on earth really started out as one cell, we don't have the technology to do so. It just is not possible to determine how far back evolution actually goes. Now you could argue that we are descendants of apes, because that much is pretty clear, at least in my mind, but creationists vs evolutionists is a pointless argument as far as the actual creation of the earth goes, because long story short, we don't know, its all conjecture to this point. Now, tell me that people are arguing that Evolution does not exist at all, and you have me on your side, but arguing that we know for a fact that evolution has always existed is also a false argument, we don't have the evidence to truly back that up.

“However, we cannot prove that evolution is responsible for life on earth either.”

>>Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of life on earth, only the origin of the different living species we observe today (regardless of how the first living thing came into existence.)

“The truth is there is no way to test and see if life on earth really started out as one cell, we don't have the technology to do so.”

>>That’s true, but nor really relevant, is it? Evolution is a theory, and like all theories cannot be proven true. Theories exist to explain bodies of evidence, and all evidence we have to date is best explained by common ancestry.

“It just is not possible to determine how far back evolution actually goes.”

>>Again, you seem to be confused about what theories exist to do. Evolutionary theories explain the evidence re: different species as far back as that evidence goes.

“Now you could argue that we are descendants of apes, because that much is pretty clear, at least in my mind, but creationists vs evolutionists is a pointless argument as far as the actual creation of the earth goes, because long story short, we don't know, its all conjecture to this point.”

>>No, it’s a pointless argument because evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of the earth, the sun, the universe, etc.

“Now, tell me that people are arguing that Evolution does not exist at all, and you have me on your side, but arguing that we know for a fact that evolution has always existed is also a false argument, we don't have the evidence to truly back that up.”

>>No one’s arguing that evolution has always been happening—certainly before the first life forms came into existence it could not be occurring. Once they did exist, however, evolutionary theories are capable of explaining how multiple new species could arise by descent.

As strange_days noted, you have convinced evolution with the theory of abiogenesis, which is the theory that life originated from the reactions of nonliving organic chemicals. Evolution deals only with the genetic change of existing life forms over time. This is a common mistake that creationists make when trying to dispute evolution: They lump it together with abiogenesis and big bang theory and try to disprove one by raising philosophic arguments against another.

As for evolution "always" happening, there is in fact plenty of evidence, both in terms of genetics and the fossil record to support that it has been going on at least as long as there has been life on Earth.

As I said, the primary argument ID proponents make is one of a lack of imagination. Just because Behe finds blood clotting or bacterial flagellum "too complex" to understand how they could form from evolutionary principles doesn't mean it didn't happen. Other scientists can and have proposed models to explain the evolution of such structures. The fact that Behe can reach a point when he can't comprehend how evolution could go further just shows what a poor scientist he is.

And quite frankly, I find ID insulting to God as well. If God is all-knowing and all-seeing, why would he create a universe that is so fundamentally flawed that it needs his constant tinkering just to keep life going?

So for these reasons and many others, I stand on very firm ground, not "thin ice" in saying that ID is not science and should not be put into a science curriculum just to assuage the willfully ignorant.