ID man asserts,
quote:
IC falsifies Darwinism/ gradualism. You HAVE to try to smear it or down play it. And yes it is in the details. Materialistic gradualism for all too long has enjoyed the luxury of riding vague generalizations under the guise of scientific explanations.
And what sort of specific, testable, falsifiable hypotheses has the IDC camp produced? If it's vague generalizations we're talking about, the fellows at the Discovery Institute lead the pack. If trying to figure out how IC went from meaning parts-work-together to magic-designer-exists is "downplaying" the concept, so be it. You've never answered the question:
If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his designs should look like? You assume IC is the fingerprint of the designer without telling us why that's a valid inference in the first place.
This thread shows that ID creationism withers when any sort of harsh light is thrown on its logic, assumptions, or methodology. For all your bleating about "evidence," we've seen no positive evidence to support ID except the fact that Newton, Pasteur, and Aristotle believed in God.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
™ Version 4.2
