The short version is that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't. In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working.
I think it makes perfectly fine theology. In fact, I like it as theology. I think God makes everything work anyway.
There were other examples in the article that I thought were bad science, but the "Designer postulate" crashes the whole theory as science. It needs a lot of work to make it science. I thought a little about an approach but couldn't make it work.
There's still an opportunity for someone. ;)
I think we need the long version. The theory makes specific predictions. Your objections are so vauge as to be incomprehensible to me.....that you can't make a scientific theory by postulating the Designer, and then filtering evidence, keeping what fits and throwing out what doesn't.
Really, why not? Didn't evos do the same thing with PE? Evos have variation in their interpretation of HOW evolution did it while sticking with the Naturalisic framework. Creationists should have the same options. Whatever do you mean by "filtering evidence"?
In grade school this sometimes passes for science, but it's not working. Again, why? The theory makes several testable predictions. Why isn't that science?