Do tell, I am all agog to know what you, someone who patently knows almost nothing about biology, can bring to our attention that nullifies the work of the hundreds of thousands of biologists over the last 150 years who have found ToE logically and evidentially persuasive.
Just a statement about consensus science (and by the way I doubt very many of these biologists dealt with the issues of the deep past such as macroevolution or large scale changes)
"So what exactly is the scientific method? Although scientists certainly do something in their field of work, there really is no such thing as the scientific method.[74] This is true for a number of reasons.
First, the majority opinion in the scientific community is often wrong.[75] Someone not going along with what the majority does can produce something scientifically useful, and this has been done many times. Second, science has many specialized fields, and scientists in those fields require certain craft skills unique in that field to conduct experiments.[76] Such experiments do not involve precise rules that give detailed instructions on what to do at each step.[77] What may appear to be misconduct to an outsider may actually be quite valid scientific practice in that field.[78]
Furthermore, rapid progress in science will be more likely if scientists do not follow a single standardized method. [79] Individual scientists have numerous ways of making theories and evaluating them, which explains why there can be disagreements among scientists. The different shaping principles that interact with data can produce different results with each scientific worker, including on how scientists should approach things. Sometimes these disconformities help to produce useful scientific revolutions. At times revolutions in science happen in large part because these kinds of shaping principles that are accepted by the majority change over time. Great changes in shaping principles create another reason why there has never been a single scientific method used by all scientists.[80] Although there are some general objectives to achieve in science (e. g. finding scientific theories that are rationally supported), there are a number of ways to go about this, and not every scientist shares the same method."
From The Nature and Philosophy of Science by Percy Williams Bridgman
The Nature and Philosophy of Science
Emphasis added by me.
[Do tell, I am all agog to know what you, someone who patently knows almost nothing about biology, can bring to our attention that nullifies the work of the hundreds of thousands of biologists over the last 150 years who have found ToE logically and evidentially persuasive.] Just a statement about consensus science
Now that you're done with your non sequitur, why don't you try actually answering the question? What, allegedly, does ID or its proponents have that nullifies 150 years of research and evidence in evolutionary biology? What, allegedly, do you have that would change the minds of hundreds of thousands of biologists who have been convinced by the existing evidence?
Someone's mumblings about how "consensus science" (a subject never broached in the question) *can* be wrong doesn't do squat to demonstrate that it *is* wrong in *this* case.
Is that the best you guys can muster when asked to actually present your case?
Pathetic.