On the contrary, you should note that your continued repetition of the claim of "false" does not change the fact that the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Changing the subject so soon? And so abruptly? That wasn't the assertion he was declaring false. Why don't you try actually dealing with what he actually wrote, instead of running off in another direction?
And I note that you haven't bothered to even attempt to substantiate your claim that "the claims of ID, insofar as they attribute the presence of organized matter that performs specific functions to intelligent design, are reasonable and within the bounds of scientific inquiry", much less your assertion that this is not just a point which can be substantiated, but is actually "a fact". Go for it.
BINGO!
Singing a child's song about a dog now?
I was not the one who raised claims of falsehood, and that is precisely the subject I was addressing. Be that as it may, natural selection is not a scientifically accessible set of terms, but an arbitrary, post hoc attribution. If one wishes to call it a "driving force" behind evolution I might not question his faith, but I am not inclined to call it science.
And I note that you haven't bothered to even attempt to substantiate your claim . . .
My claim is substantiated by that part of Western science which has understood the universe to be a product of intelligent design.