I is always disappointing to read the hysteria from people who are simply not familiar with the topic and refuse to read about what the scientists at the DI are saying.

The notion that life requires meaning is philosophical and not a scientific challenge.

As for Occam's razor--it has been invoked with greater credibility by design advocates since it is premised on a much simpler and believable truth, namely that life was designed to be as it is and does not require the intervention of countless miracles that cannot be examined or tested. There are deductions and tests for design and life as we know it appears designed--even in the opinion of the materialists. They seek to confound others by saying because life has the appearance of design--it could have come about through a process of with unknown mechanisms and round about random chances so that it is really not designed. Most people just don't buy it because of Occam's razor and what science has revealed in the past 40 years.

Darwinism is dead and it is revealing that all the attempts to rescue it by anti-God crusaders still fails to offer an alternative that makes sense to people. Amino acids do not proteins in random or "natural" ways. Cells cannot come form proteins by some known mechanism that has predictable rules. Life forms "emerge" without any scientific explanation over and over--it is the job of science to describe how.

Darwin is impotent in describing the reality of the world--it is only when a scientist can say that the processes are designed, is there any understanding.

Your parting shot that you wish to kill all those opposed to the brain-dead Darwinist clap trap is not without parallel and you are merely echoing the thoughts and beliefs of many angry atheists who cannot bear the thought of God as creator and cannot find evidence for their counter theory that the manifest intelligence in nature exists without a designing intelligence.

This is the bottom line prediction of ID theory--intelligence-rich phenomenon invariably exist from an intelligent source. If you can show this theory to be wrong-headed, you would be the first. It is a scientific deduction based upon natural observation.

I regret you prefer the faith based, the irrational, the untested and unproven. I am not angry about it but I am quick to observe that people who have blind faith about things can fall for dangerous notions. Check out the science and let the truth lead you to conclusions that are your own. You say you are a history teacher and I hope you give your students a bit more care and courtesy than you demonstrate on a public blog.