# Is There an ID Double-Standard Regarding Sufficient Evidence?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-id-double-standard-regarding-sufficient-evidence/5074>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [March 4, 2019, 11:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-id-double-standard-regarding-sufficient-evidence/5074 "2019-03-04T23:38:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Callen](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_callen/32/897_2.png) [@Michael\_Callen](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Callen)\
**Post date:** [March 6, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-id-double-standard-regarding-sufficient-evidence/5074/21 "2019-03-06T00:04:20Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Unfortunately, all too many of these discussions fit into one of these two forms.

So, technically, is it a red herring? (The question that I posed upon which @mung commented)?

> Does the ID crowd, for instance, demand granular, step-wise examples of how specific functions or species evolved while at the same time giving their own theories a pass when it comes to evidence?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-an-id-double-standard-regarding-sufficient-evidence/5074)._