Until you get this part right, nothing you have to say can be taken as anything but partisan, no matter how erudite.
[[No, criticizing a theory on the basis of a priori probability estimates, which is what ID folk, do is not science: a priori probability estimates are neither falsifiable nor verifiable.]]
Which is antoher fancy way of stating “Mathematicval odds against evoltuion are devestating, so We’ll just ignore them and ridicule thsoe who attempt to use them as beign unscientific- but hte problem is that it wasn’t the ‘ID Folks’ who did the improbability odds i nthe first place, it was the world’s leading scientists in several symposiums/conferences throughout hte years-
Demski’s mathematics clearly show that anyhting over 10 to the 1050’tth power is mathematically impossible, A single cell evolvign from chemicals is calculated at odds of 10 to the 4,478,296’th power- thsi is scientifically devestating to the idea of evoltuion, and so of course the only recourse left is to ridicule methematics as ‘not beign ‘REAL science’ and ridiculing htose who point ot such such scientific evidence as being ‘unscientific’
Even when hteir own scientists coem out with devestatigfn evidence against the hypothesis of macroevolution, they dismiss it- You can’t argue with folsk liek that