Replies

"Why should ID have to account for them?"

DING! DING! DING! DING!

Game Over, thanks for playing! See, when folks observe puzzling physical facts, the process of science tries to explain and account for them. That's what "good science" does. Theories and ideas are developed to explain observations, and attempt to make useful predictions about conditions not yet observed, and hopefully devise conclusive experiments to refine or reject the theory or model being considered.

While evolutionary theory might attempt to explain fetal developmental stages in terms of inherited, but now functionally obsolete genetic information, we see now that the ID theory does not need to even attempt to explain anything inconvenient.

Actually, this is a GREAT argument. I'll try to use it myself later.

Where did the petty cash go?
"Why should I have to account for it?"

Why does a Hot Air balloon rise?
"Why should physics have to account for that?"

Why do extraordinarily hairy men insist on wearing Speedos at the beach?
"Why should I have to account for them?"

OK, that last one was just silly, but I do wonder...

Game Over, thanks for playing! See, when folks observe puzzling physical facts, the process of science tries to explain and account for them.

DUNG! DUNG! DUNG! DUNG!

You clearly don't understand the point being made, which is that there is no more reason for ID to account for Mass Extinctions (currently thought to result from things like Giant Meteor Impacts) than for the theory of evolution to do so. Giant Meteors are explicitly outside the context of both concepts: organisms will be killed by them regardless of whether they were evolved, designed, or some combination of the two.

Get it?