Sure you do. That's why Stevie Gould -- Dr. Harvard Paleontaologist himself and no wilting evo-drone himself -- resorted to "Punctualted equilibrium" as his explanation for the paucity of any evidence that could even remotely be construed as "transitional forms."
You're sipping the evo-Koolaid.
What predictions does ID make?
ID is a premise which gives rise to a world-view even as evolution is a premise which gives rise to a world view. The study of science and predictions one makes begins with establishment of the credibility of the dogma embodied within the central premise.
What valid predictions can evolutionary premise make about random chance? Answer that question and Vegas is yours to own.
Here's what evolution predicts: evolution predicts that random chance gives rise to living systems of structurally biological elegance dependent upon precision driven modulatory systems of mathematical complexities which defy man's current ability to fully comprehend. Nothing in natural laws, or any laws of science exist to support this premise, however. Natural and mathematically applied sciences have falsified the premise of evolution time and again. The more we learn and the more complex the world is discovered by man's-admissions-come-lately to be, the deeper are driven the nails into the coffin of evolutionary premise.
The evolutionary premise runs in stark oppositon to that which is scientifically testable and observed. It is therefore merely a dream, a wish and a hope to which its adherants vainly cling. Whatever they want to think, that's not science, that's faith based religion based on a lot of wishful thinking.
Self-promoting "scientists" attempt to elevate their religious "theories" above Laws of Nature and science, but it is fueled not by anything resembling cogent scientific thought (though they like to call it that). What one actually witnesses more often are merely expresions of bloated egos, together with the conceit and vanity that goes with it -- examples of which we regularly see even here on FR.
Some of these same evolutionists go further to say their evolution (including their own of course) is essentially self-directed. By such a statement, however, the inference is that evolutionists must now admit to some form of intelligent design -- even if it is their own. So, even as they promote their intellects, their self-contradictory materialistic argument collapses beneath them.
So, the evolutionist essentially believes that life comes from non-life, intelligence arises from non-intelligence, that purpose arises from purposelessness, that random chance happenstance self-creates intricate, precision controlled biological mechanisms without which the organism dies. Given the admitted finite amount of time he thinks he needs to make repeated, statistically impossibile events happen, he'll continue to evangelize the $ granting community for support to pursue the pipe dream. He's got no science to back up such premises but it is quite a faith he espouses, isn't it?
ID predicts that the reason we can even think of engineering customize-able therapeutics with predictable therapeutic outcomes is because the biological machinery we are trying to repair or influence evidences magnificent engineering, design, and therefore predictably efficient therapeutic moieties may be designed for it. Since the object is to ameliorate the effects of, if not entirely cure disease, the therapeutic researcher seeks out the truth of the matter and the mechanism in order to better understand the ailment. While many in the research community with intellectual laziness pay the obligatory fealty to the evolutionary mantra, everything the researcher does must be founded in valid experimental design in order to make valid the conclusions he hopes to draw from his study of marvelously complex biological mechanisms.
Many evolutionists -- even here on FR -- have openly declared that their pursuit of science is not a search for truth -- "truth" they say, is a relative topic suitable only for "religious" discussions. However, the study of science unhinged from the search for truth results in the fiat "science" that is used to promote much of what we have come to know as fashionable "junk science": today's global warming, the new ice age prophets of 30 years ago, the socially Darwinistic contorted notions of non-humaness -- whether it be humans as slaves, Jews as non-persons, or the expendible and exploitable unborn, executed in the name of what some term "scientific advancements".
Evolutionary dogma in its context gives rise to both its companion junk science, and junk social science, which gives rise to the liberalism which most of us -- with a few exceptions -- collectively eschew on FR.
The scientific method is a function of intellegent design. Intellegent design is not subordinate to the scientific method. Intelligent design defines the scientific method.
Scientific thought is not an end unto itself but must exist within limits which the natural universe imposes. Scientific thought and application of the scientific method is limited, and universal in its appllicability within its inadequacies. The scientific method cannot explain everything in existence, and only as fool would contend that it does -- or can. Some very real concepts are far outside the scope of the scientific method to address.
For instance the scientific method cannot be used to explain Origins. It is precisely this reason that the materialist is marooned on the shoals of his own intellect and premise when he contemplates Origins. The materialist has no answer, and typically flees the discussion since it reveals a very soft white underbelly. The ID adherent on the otherhand confidently refers to the same Intelligent Designer whose work through the tools of science, he studies. It's a big problem for the evolutionist who believes that through the ages he's desiged himself, particularly since he doesn't have a clue where he came from, has no reason for why he is here, and only thinks he knows where he is going.
The current debate between ID and evolutionary thought sharpens the contrasted differences in ways before unseen. The universe is either intellegently designed or it's not. There is no in-between. It's a zero-sum game.
Science furnishes no evidence whatsoever to support the the evolutionary premise. Random chance can't explain what science readilly observes. Axiomatically, only ID can.
ID is therefore axiomatic in that:
(1) It is so obvious both to the trained and untrained eye.
(2) No naturalistic or physical explanation utilizing any laws of science supports the materialistic evolutionary premise.
One forms scientific postulates around phenomena which may be observed or detected. ID is so obvious, and evolutionary premise is so obviously flawed.
Only the willingly blind refuse to acknowledge ID, but they do so still, because it stands in direct contrast to the faith its devotees place in evolutionary religion embodied as it is in evolutionary premise.
"Naturalistic" explanations, where confusion self assembles over time (evidence for which does not exist and is merely more postulate and premise), which by chance "evolves" into highly precise order is both counter-intuitive and unscientific in its premise.
As any scientist should know, any predictions one tries to make based upon a fundamentally weak premise only compounds the resulting error.
The universe is either intellegently designed or it's not.
So why is the universe imperfect?
Infinite combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time. Voila! With this premise there is nothing science cannot explain no matter what the evidence, past, present, or future. A cozy way of doing "science," and business!
This is rather unintelligent nonsense. Evolution does not predict random chance gives rise to order. Evolution predicts that natural selection gives rise to order.
Do the following experiment. Toss ten coins. Keep the heads, and re-toss the tails. Do so ten times. Odds are very high you'll be left with all heads. Was the result produced by random chance?
Self-promoting "scientists" attempt to elevate their religious "theories" above Laws of Nature and science, but it is fueled not by anything resembling cogent scientific thought (though they like to call it that). What one actually witnesses more often are merely expresions of bloated egos, together with the conceit and vanity that goes with it -- examples of which we regularly see even here on FR.
Such pompousness from someone who understands neither mathematics nor biology is truly comical. The rest of the rant is deleted; clearly we have someone here who is delighted at his own words, to the unfortunate exclusion of any input from the real world. GIGO.
I'll keep sipping innocent Kool Aid. You can keep sipping creationist Flavor Aid (learn your history).
ID is a premise which gives rise to a world-view even as evolution is a premise which gives rise to a world view.
There is a fact: species have evolved over time. Using almost 150 years of science, natural selection has shown how this can occur naturally. In an effort to make creationism more palatable to the non-ignorant, ID has stated with no positive evidence that this occured under direction.
Here's what evolution predicts: evolution predicts that random chance gives rise to living systems of structurally biological elegance
Right there you're lost. You do not understand natural selection at all. You must have gone to one of those schools that taught creationism, and your education has suffered. Let's break it down for you:
You think in terms of pushing. Something always has to be pushing to direct. This is a common Western attitude, and not always a good one. Natural selection is more like pulling, the conditions of the environment pull evolution in certain ways.
However, aside from people like you who try to take this scientific argument into philosophy, I do appreciate those who present ID in a scientific context. ID is not a theory in itself (and if you believe it is, you have no business discussing science), but simply the latest in a long series of attacks on natural selection.
In science, attacks are good. True attacks destroy false theories (and you'll notice this one's still standing). Other attacks cause the theory to be altered due to new evidence or thinking (as has happened with natural selection), and others fail, strengthening the theory.
I believe the religion aspect of ID will fail scientifically, strengthening NS, but that specific scientific arguments presented may cause NS to be altered to account for them, or for more research to be done to explain them. This will also result in a stronger theory.
BTW, how is ID falsifiable?