Imo, this argument is disingenious. We all know within evo circles, the idea of ID is highly charged and likely to set off a firestorm of persecution and protest among evos towards anyone daring to publish explicitly ID papers,
As well it should becasue extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Let me repeat that.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
How about the last part.
...require
extraordinary evidence.
If someone makes a claim as extraordinary as ID, that all life on Earth is actually the work of some higher designer, that someone had better be able to back it up with much better evidence than the easily falsified "irreducible complexity" BS, especially with the mountain of evidence
directly contradicting ID (that many evolved structures, in fact, are
stupid, they simply work
well enough).
If you step into a room full of physicists and make a bizzare claim like "relativity is false!" (or anything like what tesla says every day around here), you
should be met with ridicule unless you can back up your claim with ironclad evidence.
IDists have never produced any
significant evidence beyond incredulity and religion. Until they do,
real scientists will continue to make fun of them. Believing in god (or an unnamed "designer") is one thing. Believing you can
prove it scientifically is quite another.
When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a
painful inconvenience.