I get that the comment was the best that Darwinists can come up with is by observing the nebulous denials here and even in more scholarly debates on the subject. I have scanned this thread for a single viable rebuttal of ID and yet see nothing but gainsaying and obfuscation. That's just sad.
G'night!
It isn't possible to rebut a theory that, BY DEFINITION, can have no evidence to support it.
Then again, it isn't necessary either.