There's even noticeable "evolution" in the last few generations of ppl. Because we eat more fatty foods in the west, we are gradually becoming more resistant to fatty foods. I.e., we process it more efficiently and don't become as fat/unhealthy from eating them. That's evolution, right there.

Or how The Dutch have grown over the past few generations thanks to better food and comfort, that's also evolution. They're a ppl of freaking giants now, when they were short potatoefarmers a few hundred years ago.

Now if you consider that these changes you explain Ox take place over a couple of generations, then there is little doubt that something as complex as the eye is capable of being evolved over several million years.

Also you have the question of Homo Florensis (the Hobbit). found only on Flores (if it is different to Erectus and there is strong archaeological evidence such as multiple skeletons to prove it) then this means that humans can adapt to the environment (look on the mini elephants on the island). ID is definitely something that does not fit standard scientific practice, its a philosophy with no way of experimentation unlike evolution. Therefore it shouldn't be taught in Science classes. If it was disproved (and this is what occurs regularly in science), then it would be acceptable to change teaching practices.

I did some research on ID, and guess what? The place where it originated, a think tank called Discovery Institute, is sponsored by -among others- or good friend Bill Gates. Personally. I guess I should be shocked, but then I'm not.


(for the record...Gates doesn't directly finance ID 'research' (that'd be awesomer), but he does sponsor the institute as a whole. But then, if I found out that ID originated in an institute I sponsored, first thing I'd do is cut the moneystream. And he's not doing that either. Sheesh.)