Replies

But not all scientists agree that ID lacks a scientific foundation.

I doubt if it's one half of one percent of biologists, the discipline that matters. And I notice Limbaugh doesn't dwell on this point?

In the first place, ID uses science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism.

This is in the first place? What happened to the numbers of scientists turning to ID? At any rate, we don't have anyone using science to refute "Darwinism." We have a handful of guys using pseudoscientific sleight of hand to deceive people named "Limbaugh."

In addition, ID proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, have developed criteria for testing design inferences.

Not so far. The box has been delivered, opened, and found empty.

Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory.

Behe's claim is horsehockey.

Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.

Really, Dave? That's all that needs to be done? Just demonstrate how an IC thing can evolve? We've known how such structures can evolve since before Behe ever published. A Nobelist name Muller did it circa 1948, but Behe keeps forgetting to credit the guy. Maybe that's because Muller came up with the same question Behe did but also ANSWERED THE QUESTION. Behe can't seem to find Muller's answer anywhere.

So ID is going to fold up its tent and go home now, right?

For Dembski, Spetner, and Gitt info-theory types, click here.

My personal search for that one creation/ID "good penny," an argument not based on bad facts or bad logic, has come up empty for six years. There aren't any.