Now, back to Occam ~ the argument was made that Occam's Razor demands that ID be rejected because, obviously, it's simply an extraneous, added component to an otherwise simpler system.
All that's needed to knock down that argument is to find a single Intelligent Designer who has managed to create only one marginally different lifeform.
ADM qualifies as the Intelligent Designer.
They aren't the only one either, but they exist and do that stuff.
So, cranking that into your dichotomy forces us to believe that ID is correct, or that Occam is wrong.
No doubt you didn't anticipate Occam being at stake in the debate or you wouldn't have done that, but you really have to keep in mind that in an everchanging Universe, with recombinant DNA technology being used and under further development, we cannot fail to INCLUDE the existence of at least one ID in the pot.
"Now, back to Occam ~ the argument was made that Occam's Razor demands that ID be rejected because, obviously, it's simply an extraneous, added component to an otherwise simpler system."
And this is correct.
"All that's needed to knock down that argument is to find a single Intelligent Designer who has managed to create only one marginally different lifeform.
ADM qualifies as the Intelligent Designer."
No, what is needed is any evidence for a designer that created the universe and created the life we see on earth and guided its evolution. ADM doesn't qualify. That this needs to be said is amazing.
"So, cranking that into your dichotomy forces us to believe that ID is correct, or that Occam is wrong."
No, it just means you are using a fallacious argument.
ADM qualifies as the Intelligent Designer.In Darwinian evolution, the source of variation is irrelevant. Selection will, in the long run, determine the shape of species, even those that have been manipulated by humans.