[connectthedots]

Hurling bricks (whether in error or correctly) at the theory of evolution does not for one instant validate a Theory of ID (whatever that may be). You are trying to treat ID as a default answer, to be used if you can invalidate ToE. ID must stand or fall on its own merits (and I wish it luck attempting to do so, as the sum total of ID theory and attempts to create ID theory by its supporters appears to be zip, zilch, nada).

Please read some of my later posts. In short, ID is a rejection of evolution. Never said it proved ID, other than that if evolution is not true, can you propose other alternatives to consider?

[Thatcherite]

Please read some of my later posts. In short, ID is a rejection of evolution.

Well, I am glad that you are admitting that it is not a scientific theory in its own right. Maybe we are making progress.

Never said it proved ID, other than that if evolution is not true, can you propose other alternatives to consider?

Your or my incapacity to think of alternatives to ToE in no way validates supposed existing alternatives to ToE, which must stand or fall according to the extent to which they fit current observations, the successful predictions that they make, and the falsification attempts that they have survived. ToE has all of those characteristics in spades. So far no-one has ever proposed a scientific theory of ID that meets any part of the requirements of a theory.