"First off, we can note that there are scads of peer-reviewed journals that deal with various aspects of intelligent design in biology. It would be silly to claim that, on the strength of these peer-reviewed journals, that Intelligent Design is inherently without merit. Clearly it's not, because it's currently being done, and in a peer-reviewed manner at that. "
Post one or the link to one. (not one published by Discovery Inst. that doesn't count)
I really can't think of any convincing evidence for an IDer.
The Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains speciation.
With all these posts back and forth, I would expect you to tell me what would be good scientific evidence for ID. I don't think you can use Darwin effectively to make your case.
I posted a link to numerous links to Journals that deal with biotechnology, genetic engineering, and so on. Those activities, as you've already agreed, constitute "intelligent design" in the biological realm.
I really can't think of any convincing evidence for an IDer. The Theory of Evolution sufficiently explains speciation.
Sufficiently, or correctly? They're separate and distinct concepts, and you're apparently equating them.
With all these posts back and forth, I would expect you to tell me what would be good scientific evidence for ID.
You mean, other than the instances where it's currently practiced? And in those cases, the question would be: how would one detect the presence of humans in the loop without a priori knowledge that they were there? I don't know what such a test might be -- that's why I suggested the need to define them -- but I'm pretty sure that the current stable of tests isn't sufficient to pick it up.
With all your claims of "no evidence" I'd think you'd be able to tell us what evidence you'd accept. Moreover, I think you'd be able to show us how your "sufficient theory" would be able to correctly explain "non-natural" processes such as are documented in the journals to which I linked, or in the characteristics of the dog breeds on your street.
Can you do it? Or would your theory founder on the assumption that all characteristics must have arisen from "natural" processes?
I don't think you can use Darwin effectively to make your case.
I don't understand this statement -- please explain.