More on the difference between science and ID

The Billings Gazoo has done it again. It seems someone in an editorial position there just doesn't understand that there is no argument over evolution in the science curriculum. The vast majority of scientists see evolution as the cornerstone of science of all kinds, whether it's geology, physics, or biology. There is no argument in the scientific community. Those who want Intelligent Design, the latest form of creationism taught, just don't seem to understand that while it is as valid a belief as many others, it is a belief, not a scientific standard. Those who think that the odds are against anything happen by accident don't seem to accept the idea that if enough monkeys use enough typewriters over a long enough period of time, they will reproduce the works of Proust. No matter how high the odds, the billions of years in which the universe has existed have provided enough time for many, many things to happen. All the evidence from fossils and DNA, particularly DNA, support evolution and not creationism. What evidence is there for creationism or intelligent design? All the concepts used as a denial of evolution, even if correct, do not prove that ID ever happened. If they were to be proven correct, all they would indicate is that evolution did not happen, not that creationism or ID did. Big difference.

It's like saying that since Jericho existed, Joshua blew his horn and the walls came tumbling down at God's command. The existence of Jericho does not prove the myth or the reasons that the walls may have fallen down.