I respectfully submit that it is the myopic Darwinists who are making a hasty generalization. The origin of life is a question Darwinists run from, but ID has a hypothesis.
Not a tough question, but I'm going to pause and point out an irony first.
I respectfully submit that it is the myopic Darwinists who are making a hasty generalization.
"Myopic," i.e., "nearsighted." The answer to your question was quoted (from the article) in my post to which you are responding. I'll run it by you again.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.I bolded the relevant section this time because otherwise your creationist myopia might have kept it hidden for another round of posts. Now, trying to save a few steps, I'll assume up front that I must explain the fallacious nature of the bolded portion.
If we try to state "... nature is so complex it could only have been created by design" as a syllogism, it comes out looking like the following. [If you don't know what a syllogism is, Google.]
Premise 1: Nature is complex.We are missing a premise, something to so constrict or bind Premise 1 as to compell the conclusion. What is obviously missing is one of the following two:
Premise 2:
Ergo: Nature could only have been created by design.
Premise 2: Evolution cannot produce complexity at all.There is not the tiniest substantiation to either version. The first one is patently false, a strawman version of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms producing complexity. If the second one has any truth, the disallowed level of complexity has not been reached or identified. The whole idea that only ID explains complexity is bogus. The article's contention that such is the (rotten) foundation of ID has gone uncontested so far on this thread.
Premise 2a: Evolution can produce some complexity, but not above some well-defined level.
There are no good arguments for creationism or ID, and no good arguers for same. The whole thing is a sham. It's willful, militant ignorance. Mistatements of fact are a mainstay. Deliberate fallacy abounds. It is a political and religious movement trolling for suckers.
It has no place in science class unless the specific topic is Abnormal Psychology.