[darbymcgill]

No it wasn't. In 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant.

Well maybe I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that a new Wollemi pine mutated or spontaneously generated itself somewhere in remote Australia?

Can I also assume that your response to the age old question:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it really make a sound?

would be.... NO...

And no I'm not avoiding your question... I'll allow myself to be diverted in a second...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Well maybe I'm not getting your point. Are you saying that a new Wollemi pine mutated or spontaneously generated itself somewhere in remote Australia?"

No, I am saying that in 1990 there was no scientific evidence that the Wollemi pine was still extant. Do you think that it would have been correct for scientists to have said in 1990 that the pine WAS still around even when there was no evidence available to support that claim? Scientists make claims based on available evidence, not on all possible future evidence that may or may not exist. You are asking science to bend the rules for ID and sneak it in before it can make any testable claims. That is Behe's position too, which is why he said that science would need to be redefined to allow ID.