Sairiliyan Siyaska wrote:

Rational: There is no ng in which we can discuss existence of
supernatural force in rational way. Generally ID is connected to
religion and this perception creates confusion in rational minds.

Let's see. There's sci.bio.evolution, where one can rationally discuss
disargeements in science without pseusoscientific misrepresentation
interfering.

Then there's talk.origins, where science and pseudoscience can debate
freely.

Then I discovered alt.talk.creationism. Being one of those who's often
called "too logical" I thought that ATC would "naturally" be where the
mutually contradictory creationisms can debate their differences
without having to pick on evolution. Nope. For the few months I hung
out there not one creationist did anything but misrepresent evolution.
No supporting their own position - indeed rarely even stating their own
"what happened and when" let alone critiquing it. Yup. Pure
"pseudoscience code of silence." And I don't just blame the
creationists, but defenders of evolution who are not content with TO
and got "sucked in". And yes, that included me briefly.

So I'm all for trying again. How about a NG where IDers and
creationists can debate their differences - e.g. "how old is life",
"are humans & chimps related" etc. Maybe then we can finally find out
what ID can and cannot accommodate. Warning: the first time someone
cops out and bases his argument on some perceived weakness of
"Darwinism" you can count on someone (not me) turning it into "TO3."
And it will be yet another effective admission that ID/creationism are
not science.