[Stultis]

Intelligent Design: fact takes on the fiction of Evolution.

ID is "fact" now, eh? Even many ID'ers admit it doesn't even qualify as a full scientific theory, and instead describe it as an "inference".

But "fact"? How does that work when ID'ers will only "infer" that "intelligent design" occurred, but won't say (or even speculate as to) how, or where, or when, or by whom it was instantiated? How can you refer to the factuality of an approach where at least four of the five basic reporters' questions -- who, what, where, when and why -- are purposefully avoided? Even the "what" is rather shaky since, for instance, Dembski won't apply his mathematical model of "specified complexity" to a real world case.

[newsgatherer]

ID is "fact" now, eh? Even many ID'ers admit it doesn't even qualify as a full scientific theory, and instead describe it as an "inference". But "fact"? How does that work when ID'ers will only "infer" that "intelligent design" occurred, but won't say (or even speculate as to) how, or where, or when, or by whom it was instantiated? How can you refer to the factuality of an approach where at least four of the five basic reporters' questions -- who, what, where, when and why -- are purposefully avoided? Even the "what" is rather shaky since, for instance, Dembski won't apply his mathematical model of "specified complexity" to a real world case.

I'm not sure where you are getting your informatioon, but, the who is God, the when is right on 6,415 years ago, and the where is, well, look around, earth and the heavens.