What if ID were true? Then what?

I can’t help wondering whether ID is pointless.  Even if there were an intelligent designer, I don’t see that as being of much use to biologists.

Archeologists find pottery in their digs.  And they infer that the pottery was designed.  This kind of example is sometimes mentioned by ID proponents.

If that archeologist wants to find out more about the pottery, he is going to ask physicists and chemists to examine it.  Whether or not it was intelligently designed won’t affect that analysis at all.  It will be based on the evidence obtained from the pottery itself.  The relation of pottery to design, is that by studying the pottery one can make reasonable inferences about the designers, about their culture and their skills.  But, knowing that there was design, doesn’t tell us anything about the pottery itself.

It seems to me that the same would apply to ID and biology.  Even if it could be shown that there was an intelligent designer, that would not tell us anything about what we observe in biology.  We would still need evolutionary biology to explain the biological processes that we see in action, and we would still be making extrapolations back to the past about common descent, and noticing that what those extrapolations show is remarkably consistent with evidence from the past.  I am not seeing where knowledge that there was in intelligent designer would help at all.

If the purpose were to study what biology tells us about the intelligent designer, then maybe there would be a point.  But that could be studied even without knowing for sure whether ID is true.  In fact, making such inferences about the intelligent designer should help identify where to look for actual evidence of design.  So what are the ID proponents waiting for?

Comments anybody?

69 thoughts on “What if ID were true? Then what?

  1. But ID is true. 😉

    I think that most people probably do think that ID is true, so in that respect there might not be much impact.

    What would it mean if life were not an accident?

    What would it mean if humans were not the result of a blind, purposeless, process [setting aside the oxymoron] that did not have them in mind?


  2. My 6000 word essay, should I complete it, is devoted entirely to the utility of evolution as a working hypothesis and the sterility of ID.

    As they say, ID is not even wrong. It is completely useless. 

  3. What it would mean is an idiot Designer if it took 3.5 billion years of its meddling in evolution to eventually create the humans it supposedly had “in mind” as its goal from the beginning. Rank stupidity.  OR it would mean a goddamned lying Designer if it poofed us all into existence a few thousand years ago along with poofing into existence all the evidence of common descent, ERVs, fossil lineages, etc.  Criminal stupidity.

    Take your pick. Idiot or liar.  

    Makes no difference to me.  


  4. No one has ever been able to imagine any legitimate science being guided by the presupposition that ID is true.  The IDers have never once suggested a line of science inquiry that (they think) follows from assuming ID is true and then seeing what that would entail.  Even UB with his “entailments” repeated ad nauseum was never able to answer the next logical question: okay, granting for sake of argument that you’re correct, then what? What does the concept “life was designed by an agent” entail? What does it lead to as far as new research?

    ID is useless.  Like you say.  


  5. I think that most people probably do think that ID is true, so in that respect there might not be much impact. 

    Most people are not professional scientists, just as most people are not trained in medicine or law.  So the lack of public impact would not be surprising.  So what?

     What would it mean if life were not an accident?

     What would it mean if humans were not the result of a blind, purposeless, process [setting aside the oxymoron] that did not have them in mind?

     You apparently have an idea.  Spill it.

  6. What if ID were true?

    Problem for me is that this jumps the precursor: “What is ID”? In seven years of observing ID proponents, I have never yet caught sight of an ID hypothesis, argument or supposition that could form the basis of a rational discussion. Paul Nelson has said “we don’t yet have a theory” and nothing seems to have changed in the seven years since he made that remark.

  7. JoeG has commented on his own blog:

    Well Neil, we would be investigating biology in that light. And that means we wouldn’t infer all mutations were random/ chance events- or as Dawkins said, we would be looking at a totally different kind of biology.

    Well, no, knowing that ID were true would not change the evidence that the mutations are random.

    ID being true would mean we would be looking for software that controls the hardware, ie it would mean there is more to life than what we can see under the microscope.

    I already assume that there is more to life than we see under the microscope.  And there probably isn’t any hidden software.

    And it would also mean that we know what to look for to find other civilizations.

    Why don’t all of those brilliant ID scientists start using that knowledge right now?

    So the bottom line is ID would be a complete game changer.

    Well, maybe we would be able to infer that the Intelligent Designer is a doufus.

    I reluctantly suppose that I should provide a link.


  8. The fact is that ID was fully formed by 1803, and for at least a hundred years following the publication of Paley’s Natural Theology, most biologists were theists.

    For two hundred and ten years, ID has been a sterile idea. 

  9. If the Designer’s machinations are real but indistinguishable in any way from evolution as scientists understand it (of the Designer has chosen evolution as His method of Design), then the idea contributes nothing new or useful. Conversely, if the Designer is diddling with the rules of reality to perform genuine magic but it has proven impossible to document or test a single example of it, then we might as well continue as we are. If we limit the Designer to poofing stuff offstage one time long ago, we should be able to find a discontinuity somewhere in the evidence. Is anyone looking for one?

    As far as I can tell, most of the Design Intelligensia are armchair cultists supporting foregone conclusions with word games. The few actual researchers seem devoted entirely to showing that evolution cannot do what the theory of evolution does not suggest it can.

    So all that remains of any importance is the struggle to elect and avoid electing spinless politicians who might appoint creationist judges. It’s morbidly fascinating to read Scalia’s dissent to Edwards.   

  10. My 6000 word essay, should I complete it, is devoted entirely to the utility of evolution as a working hypothesis and the sterility of ID.

    Does that mean it’s going to completely ignore the question of the origin of life and concentrate on the origin of new body plans?

  11. I would hope any decent essay would be based on what is observed and tested, and documented by tens of thousands of papers and studies.

    An essay on the origin of life would necessarily be sketchy, speculative, and not very useful. The theory of evolution is useful BECAUSE it explains what is actually seen. 

  12. I don’t intend to argue that any particular claims of science are true in an absolute sense. My position is that evolution is productive in ways that ID cannot be. Anyone who has been on a jury knows that absolute certainty is not possible, but we must do our best to acquire reliable knowledge.

    ID is a relic left over from animism, the belief in ghosts and spirits inhabiting things. It looks for capriciousness in nature rather than regularity. It’s the unexplored areas of the map of knowledge labeled “here be dragons.” It’s a fearful cringing mouse of an idea, always shunning the light.

    But all you need to do to overturn my opinion is present ID’s research program. You don’t even need to complete the research. Just specify some positive attribute of the designer, his methods of operation, for example, that lead to expectations incompatible with evolution. Preferably predicting some finding before it is found rather than coming round aftersome new discovery.

  13. ID conquering, it will, would change everything in ideas about biological processes.
    ID often takes on evolutionary biology.
     Making biology a act from a thinking being and not from random mutations would force investigation into its laws at a accelerated rate as expecting to discover laws.
    Evolution took laws out of biology.
    If there are laws they can be manipulated and perhaps healing be greatly aided in medicine. 

    Understanding a creator is behind nature makes evolution very unlikely and its all ready unlikely.

  14. ID conquering, it will, would change everything in ideas about biological processes.

    How about something specific?

    ID often takes on evolutionary biology.

    ID proponents keep taking pot shots at evolutionary biology. They invariably miss.

    Making biology a act from a thinking being and not from random mutations would force investigation into its laws at a accelerated rate as expecting to discover laws.

    Unless you can identify the actual designer, and ask about those laws, how will it help?

    Evolution took laws out of biology.


    If there are laws they can be manipulated and perhaps healing be greatly aided in medicine.

    Evolutionary biology has been a factor in many recent medical advances.

  15. Robert Byers :

    Proposals don’t cost anything. Feel free to outline an ID research program. 

  16. And what do you mean “If” Mung. I thought ID *was* true, no? 

    So if ID were true, as you presumably believe it is, what would be taught differently in that same science class? Get specific, if you can Joe!

  17. Two things that will never be seriously addressed by any leaders in the ID movement: 

    1. What would you teach if you could write the curriculum?
    2. If guaranteed a sizable research grant, what research would you propose?

    I suppose the answer to the first would be that there are gaps in the fossil record and a few chunks of DNA that have no close relatives. Facts not in dispute.

    The second question is more interesting. Would ID advocates  propose an expedition to look for tiktaalik? Would ID advocates have proposed following a colony of bacteria for decades? What would they propose? Given some money, what would they want to look for and expect to find?


    I have a question specifically for gpuccio. Given some funding, what kind of experiment would you propose to demonstrate intelligent selection? Where would you start? What would be your objective? How would you control the experiment to demonstrate the advantage of intelligent selection over natural selection?

  18. Neil Rickert.
    its not evolutionary biology but , at best, trivial details about selection within species that might help here and there. CReationists would do this too.

    Correction of error in subjects about mechanisms and processes could only aid in progressing understanding and use of these things!

    A example important to me is eyesight and healing. (Issues with me)
    If eyes are from designer then their complexity would mean theres only a  few options for types of eyes.
    this is what is found.
    Every creature big enough has the same eye type.
    only insects etc have a different type.
    So from this one could say there is most likely just one equation for eyesight.
    So by comparison of the few types of eyes it could be discovered and this lead to healing (manipulation) .
    Evolution however teaching variety as a rule due to mutations and selection and time would never seek a single equation for eyesight.
    It doesn’t expect to find.
    So ID /YEC has better odds for healing.

    Another case more yEC is about human intelligence.
    Since Christians must believe our thinking being goes to the afterlife then it must be our brain is unrelated to our actual thinking selves.
    Therefore its impossible for our thinking to be primitive or advanced based on structure.
    So children or elderly or retarded people must think like us without any difference.
    tHerefore the observed differences must come from the mechanical failure of the memory.
    Babies are dumb only because their memory doesn’t allow information to easily be remembered and in their case they don’t come with info and so are babies.
    Likewise prodigy’s are just kids whose memories were nurtured quicker.
    Anyways healing of retarded people is a more likely option from a creationist oresumption.
    Lots of stuff like this show correction in origin ideas would make a better world.

  19. So ID /YEC has better odds for healing.

    Please provide a specific medical research proposal. It won’t cost you a cent to describe the research you would do.

    Or if you don’t feel qualified to do research yourself, pleas provide a link to ID based research proposals published by ID advocates.

    There are a number of religiously affiliated medical schools. I understand one of them did some ID based heart transplants. Can you describe what advantages there might be in medicine if doctors weren’t hung up on evolution?

  20. Every time Byers posts anything, it conjures up images of a hollow, disembodied, incoherent voice emerging out of a thick purple haze.

  21. So by comparison of the few types of eyes it could be discovered and this lead to healing (manipulation) .

    Eye doctors use knowledge gained by research, knowledge about how the eye actually operates. I doubt that ID could do anything better than that.

    Since Christians must believe our thinking being goes to the afterlife then it must be our brain is unrelated to our actual thinking selves.

    We should allow somebody with such absurdly primitive ideas to do brain surgery?

  22. I presume the post is a quote from Chesterton, though undoubtedly posted with approval.

    More troubling is the fact that Barry Arrington, a lawyer, approves such a weak standard of evidence.

  23. What a lawyer is hired to do is win the case. Whatever it takes. If the facts favor you, pound the facts. If the law favors you, pound the law. If neither favors you, pound the table. The question of exactly what happened and what role the participants played is not the question on the table. The question on the table is, which way is the judge (or jury) going to decide, and how can they be influenced to decide the way the lawyer is paid to make them decide.

    Creationism is absolutely ideal for lawyers, because you start with your conclusion and your job is to spin things that way. 

  24. Since Arrington’s criterion for something to be true is that millions of people believe it; he must therefore conclude that every sectarian view within every religion must therefore be true. As he argues, you can’t discount thousands of “witnesses.”

    Which then raises the question, “Why were Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno burned at the stake? Why were there – and still are – so many blood wars among sectarians? After all, they are all true according to Chesterton and Arrington.

    Chesterton’s statement,

    “The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.”

    is nothing more than a bald assertion that demonizes people who demand evidence as having “doctrines,” while at the same time asserting that repeated belief on the part of gullible believers is the same as evidence. They simply hate people who demand evidence; but at the same time they lionize believers as people having evidence.

    So if Chesterton and Arrington can reserve for themselves “proof by assertion,” then the obvious answer to their assertions is more “proof by assertion” that they are dead wrong. I assert they are wrong; therefore Chesterton and Arrington are wrong. There is nothing more to discuss; I win.

    Man, UD is a bizarre website! Not even George Orwell could capture the double-think, cargo cult philosophizing that goes on over there.

  25. Upright BiPedant chimes in at Nick Matzke with the ID/creationist’s ultimate “refutation by deliberate ignorance;” “I refuse to learn any science; therefore there is no scientific evidence for any claims of science.”

    The double whammy of ID/creationist reasoning: proof by assertion and refutation by deliberate ignorance.

  26. Yes, the comments on that thread are a particularly fun read.

    We must always remember that ID is not an apologetic, it is science.

    That must be why there is a thread that quotes an apologetic, and why the apologetics arguing is out in full force.

    They are unable to keep to their official cover story.

  27. I aspire to be, but don’t consider myself to be, a sophisticated thinker. But even I can see this is a jaw-droppingly bad argument from Barry. In his example, the phenomena we’re trying to explain is not ghosts, but the peasant’s testimony. And as WD400 points out in the comments, Bayes shows us that it is fine to believe some things are more likely based on prior knowledge. Conversely  ghosts are actually to be believed likely less based on prior knowledge.

    Also, this is clearly false: “That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle” – miracles are not deemed impossible, just not the best explanation given evidence and experience – inference to the best explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
    So “You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story.” <> “That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism — the abstract impossibility of miracle” 

    Barry’s arguments are out standing in their fields – because they are strawmen. Badum-tsh!

    Regarding the claim of ‘dogmatism’:


    “2: : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises” – see Bayes above. Those who accept the story are being dogmatic.


  28. Mung, in the ‘Chesterton’ thread alluded to above:

    Even “scientific evidence” is based upon witness testimony.

    So by all means, let’s disregard all witness testimony.

    And scientists believe in things they cannot even see, or measure! How’s that for a step down from belief in ghosts?

    This sums up a fundamental misconception regarding scientific evidence – that it is the same thing as single testimony. Conducting an experiment necessarily requires ‘witnessing’ by one or a few individuals. But you publish the methods and anyone can create their own instance of the phenomenon and verify the results. The results of one experiment can suggest others, independent of the first. But one is hardly in a position to do that with a single, or even group, testimony of a particular historical event, if it refuses to repeat itself to independent observation.

    And another friend of TSZ, WJM, reiterates his favoured thesis, that people who reject the ‘evidence’ do so due to a priori ideological blinkers (an argument with the intellectual weight of “you don’t accept my thesis because you smell”):

    Even if there were a lack of evidence (which there is not), a lack of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. At best, one can say they are unconvinced by the evidence, which would make them undecided or agnostic about such claims; however, they certainly cannot reasonably claim that the evidence supports a view that such things do not exist.

    It’s fairly obvious that the belief that such things do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.

    No evidence is sufficient to prove the negative. Therefore it is irrational to consider anything untrue? Especially if a lot of people claim otherwise? I think that’s what he’s saying.

  29. The hallmarks of scientific evidence are that it supports a conjecture and can be independently replicated, refined and extended. As a lawyer. Barry should know that hundreds of people convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony have been freed on the basis of DNA evidence.

  30. That bornagain77 is also another character over at UD who doesn’t know enough high school physics and chemistry to do that little calculation of scaling up the charge-to-mass ratio and energies of interaction at the molecular level to the macroscopic level.

    One can always spot this inability from the way these ID/creationists talk about the complexity of molecules.  Their “probability calculations” give them away.  They have no idea about how atoms and molecules interact.

    Just like that kairosfocus character, he likes to dump truckloads of copy/paste junk as though this is supposed to convince someone that he is an expert in physics.  However, he is simply one of these characters who gets caught up in popularizations and woo-woo pseudo-philosophizing about physics; yet he couldn’t do a basic high school level order-of-magnitude calculation if his life depended on it.  The stuff he is trying to dump on Alan Fox is a hilarious pretence.

    UD seems to be a magnet for these characters.  They’re getting pretty weird over there.

  31. I see you posting parallel arguments at Panda’s Thumb.

    I don’t post there because it somehow displays my name instead of  by screen name.

    But my favorite metaphor for teaching is impedance matching. Same for popular science writing.

  32. Yeah; I’ve been posting over there for quite a few years now. I’ve been sharing my 50 some odd years of experience with the ID/creationists’ mangling of the physics and math stuff. There have been similar threads over there discussing thermodynamics (not just Sewell’s shenanigans) and the misrepresentations of elementary physics by ID/creationists.

    The impedance matching metaphor is apt; but doing it with lay audiences is harder than it looks on the face of it.  At least it is for me.

  33. EdwardTBabinski writes: “If supernaturalism is true based on common tales from common men and women, then what ISN’T true? Allah, Brahma, Buddha, Zeus, Marduk, New Agers, Wiccans, tossing salt over one’s shoulder, keeping clear of the paths of black cats, UFOs, urban myths, chain letter threats, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, elves, et al.”

    And Barry responds (in obnoxious red):

    “Edward, you don’t seem to understand the point of the OP. Let me try to explain. Chesterton never says we must suspend our credulity and accept uncritically outlandish claims. At the other extreme is selective hyper-skepticism where we refuse to believe anything that does not fit comfortably within our preexisting worldview. Chesterton advocates for a balanced middle ground. He does not say we must always believe the old apple woman. He says we should credit her testimony regarding proposition A (supernatural events) to the same extent we would credit her testimony regarding proposition B (non-supernatural events). In other words, if she is generally credible, we should conclude that her testimony is positive evidence for either event and vice versa. The analysis does not end there. Just as a single witnesses’ testimony rarely conclusively establishes anything in court even if the witness is believed to be credible, the testimony of a single credible individual to an allegedly supernatural event does not necessarily establish the matter. It is only evidence, not conclusive apodictic proof.”


    I can’t believe Barry made it through law-school!

    “He says we should credit her testimony regarding proposition A (supernatural events) to the same extent we would credit her testimony regarding proposition B (non-supernatural events).” 

    NO. Per Bayes’ theorem, it’s also contingent on the a priori likelihood of the events themselves. Is Barry treating ‘credit /credibility’ as a binary? Incredibly unsophisticated thinking in this regard.

  34. I can’t believe Barry made it through law-school!

    One does wonder. Perhaps he took some elective classes in apologetics.

    Per Bayes’ theorem, it’s also contingent on the a priori likelihood of the events themselves.

    Barry probably assumes a prior of 1 for Christian supernatural claims, and a prior of 0 for non-Christian supernatural claims. And that’s fine for his personal judgments. But he should not be assuming the same priors for the non-theists that he is criticizing.

  35. Perhaps some of the reason may be seen on the Evolutionist view violence as progress thread over at UD, where we see a DarelRex making the following comment:

    It has worried me over the years to watch the focus of Uncommon Descent subtly shift from “What is the scientific evidence for/against evolution?” to “What awful things will happen to human society if people believe evolution?”

    But it is doubly disturbing to see one of the more blatant posts along the latter line being made by the ID author whose main claim to fame is writing an entire book about the subject of how evolutionists use ascientific [sic] modes of persuasion as a substitute for evidence-based testing of Darwin’s theory.

    To which the feces-hurling, flying monkey, Mung, replies:


    This is what has happened as a result of the fact that ID/creationism has never been a science arguing against science. It has always been a sectarian socio/political movement trying to discredit science without ever getting right the science it purports to criticize.

    So we have over fifty years of impotent ID/creationist pseudo-science that can’t stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny; and we have court case after court case going against this blatant political effort on the part of the ID/creationists. What then could they possibly have left?

    The answer is now pseudo-philosophy; in particular, pseudo-epistemology. Change the meanings of all words that have anything to do with evidence and how we come to know things. Try to undermine the very template of scientific thinking and the demand for evidence.

    Demonize anyone who attempts to follow the template of scientific thinking; make them out to be as evil as you possibly can. Treat scientists and anyone who learns science just as you would all of those dreaded, competing sectarian dogmas you hate so much. Outlaw them and burn them at the stake. Hate them with all the venom you can muster; and enflame the same hatred, bigotry, and terror in anyone you can persuade to follow you.

    This is what UD has become; a kvetching, hate-filled, pity party for a bunch of sectarian losers who didn’t get to take over society in the way they had planned. They never had any science of their own (only pseudoscience at best); and they never understood the real science they criticized and demonized. All they have now is just constant bitching.

  36. I think we’d have to allow ourselves legitimate skepticism vis a vis her interpretation of what she saw. She saw a murder? Fair enough, if she saw the knife go in, or the gun fire, or the hands round the throat. As to the ghostly apparition – I’d accept she saw what she saw. But whether what she saw was a ghost or not, is another matter.

    There are sound rational reasons for disbelieving in ghosts, but not for disbelieving in murder. They relate to observable properties of matter, and organisms, and the capacity of dead ones to generate photons giving the impression to the eye of a clothed moving form – all that kind of ‘material’ stuff which, like it or not, is how the world presents itself to our outward senses. Perhaps there is another path from external manifestation to the internal experience, but it has not been demonstrated.

    The UD crew make the mistake of assuming that their boogey-man materialist has a prior commitment. But it is arrived at after all the stories – ghosts, fairies, angels, Santa – have been found to be without apparent substance. The prior position is to swallow whole what people tell you, when you don’t know any different. 

    [and yes – comments in red are intrinsically annoying, even though that seems to be simply the OP-er’s default].


  37. Mike,

    Demonize anyone who attempts to follow the template of scientific thinking; make them out to be as evil as you possibly can.

    Cornelius Hunter, to whose blog the UD piece links, is a past master of that. He’s managed to link evolutionism to Breivik, school shootings, abortion, a Corny-u-copia of other ills. And good old kairosfocus has bristled at a suggestion (from Noor) that Hitler was a Creationist with the usual ‘well-poisoning’ rant, hypocritical given that he is more than happy to big-up those familiar, tenuous links from Darwin to the death camps.

    Meantime CH’s science is great for a laugh. Anything that scientists now know that they didn’t used to know (you’d kind of hope that was still going on … 🙂 ) is pounced upon as evidence that the Darwinist paradigm is crashing about ears. 

    A batch of CH hilarity succeeding the human-fists-all-evolutionists-fault relates to the unexpected lack of conservation of alternative splicing across species. Which is great news for any ‘anti-Darwinist’ who thinks ‘Darwinism’ is deeply wedded to a model that permits only point mutational change to protein. It is, however, a slap in the chops for gpuccio and kairosfocus and their ‘islands of function’ nonsense, since alternative splicing essentially says that you can take a working protein, chop it in bits and reassemble in one or more different ways and still end up with working protein, with different functions. This argues against the ‘island’ model that has proteins break at the slightest touch.

    eta: a grad student involved shakes his head at the interpretation of his work on reddit, linked in comments to this piece: http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/alternative-splicing-damage-control.html

  38. Yeah; Hunter comes across as pretty crabby and emotionally scarred.  His bio says he is an Adjunct Professor at Biola (Bible Institute of Los Angeles); not exactly a famous researcher at a major university successfully submitting research proposals and contributing to the advancement of science.  I wonder what bit him and made him so mad.

  39. For the science, maybe. As to the rest, its underhand demonisation of science and scientists, atheists and liberals, and anyone else who happens to press their emotional buttons, the Hitler this and “this is what we are up against” that, for the banning of a long line of posters with the temerity to hold contrary viewpoints … on that, no chance.

    But let’s see some reason to concede ID’s truth that doesn’t rest upon such shaky, political foundations, or a vague sense that evolution cannae be right.

  40. If Santa Claus is real a lot of people owe apologies. However, the evidence for Santa is the same as the evidence for ID. A lot of people think Santa is the best explanation for presents on Christmas morning.

  41. petrushka: However, the evidence for Santa is the same as the evidence for ID.

    If there was as much evidence for ID as there was for Santa, I’d switch sides today!  🙂



  42. There is, and it’s exactly the same kind of evidence. There are pictures of the designer  and buildings devoted to Him. 

  43. Mung, 
    When you say “If ID is true” what version of ID do you mean?

    Joe’s version?
    KF’s version?
    Behe’s version?
    Mung’s version (not that I know what that is). 

    Or do you mean the generic version of “evolution didn’t do it therefore ID”?

    Could you get back to me with what version of ID you are referencing here? 

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.