[[Some opinions are worth more than others.]]
True- but hteir opinions don’t constitute scientific fact hwen they go beyond the scientific evidence, which his belief in common descent certainly does.
[[I’m not aware of anyone in the ID movement who denies the evidence for common descent.]]
There are plenty- you just haven’t looked hard enough apparently.
[[But more important than who testifies is how they frame their arguments. The same argument that identifies criminals and identifies relatives in custody cases confirms common descent.]]
As I mentioned, it makes connections- this in no way implies common descent unless you are inferrign that common descent ONLY applies to individual species and not itner-species- the fingerprint linking the glass cup to the criminal only shows connection- not common descent- the DNA test that shows the son to be a father’s kin only shows connection between two like kinds- what it doesn’t show is a common descent between that boy, the father, and some gorrilla, or gecko, or hwatever you want to beleive we descended from.
The same reasonining that connects parent to child and cousins to each other also connects cousin species.
By the way, even creationists like Ken Ham accept common descent of species to the level of biological Family. That’s what’s taught at the Creation Museum.
Didn’t we once have a discussion about whether canids were descended from a single pair on Noah’s Ark?