[MineralMan]

"However, the theory of evolution is at least based on extrapolation from known natural processes, whereas design almost be definition cannot be. That alone will rule out design as a subject for scientific evaluation."

A very good point, indeed. We can see the evidence for evolution as a mechanism for the development of species. We cannot see the design process.

ID is not science; it is philosophy.

[WildTurkey]

ID is not science; it is philosophy.

ID is a disguised attempt at credibility inorder to fleece more money from the unwise.

[Lucky Dog]

We can see the evidence for evolution as a mechanism for the development of species.

It would seem that the only evidence that can “be seen” for the emergence of new species is the fossil record. The mere existence of fossils, or for that matter, the lack thereof, does not explain how these fossils may have come to exist, or not, as the case may be.

Can you cite an experiment that has been reproduced by independent experimenters wherein a new, more complex, species has emerged from temporally earlier, less complex species? Without such experimental evidence, “Darwinism’s mechanism” remains “not testable” and thus “not falsifiable.” If it is not falsifiable, then, by definition, it is not a scientific theory. If “Darwinism” is not a scientific theory, then, it is, at best, a philosophy or hypothesis.

Consequently, if the postulated mechanism of “Darwinism” is not falsifiable in terms of producing new species, it is, like ID, is nothing more than philosophy.

[metacognative]

Even arch-evolutionist Michael Ruse conceded that darwinism is also a philosophy/religion [although without a deity].