[[It is rather common in these debates to see both positions argued by the same person, without irony.]]
Except that Denton gave NO evidence that macoreovlution happens- He only engaged in more assumptions and support-less claims in his second book- Behe beleives in ID, BUT Behe also beleives in common descent- however Behe has NO evidence to show CD- and offers nothign but speculations that quite frankly ignore natural laws, biological laws and impossibilities, and mathematical impossibilities- It’s fien that they beleive what they do, but with hte advent of hte article we’re discussing, and hte natural biological and mathematical impossibilties of naturalism, the evidnece is mounting that ID is nedded needed, and not just at soem molecular levels,
We don’t see Macroevolution being argued with evidence, We do however see ID beign argued using evidence that is far more reasonable than the hypothesis of Macroevo- The ebvidneces presented in this thread topic being yet another prime example.
It is often argued that we can detect design directly without knowing anything about the designer. Paley's watch, for example.
But we detect artifacts made by humans by knowing something about humans and having examples of things we have observed humans making.
We also have examples of things made via evolution. Granted they are rather small things -- antibiotic resistance or nylon metabolism, for example. But we do have one guiding principle for things made via the agency of variation and descent: things related by common descent must have genomes that form a nested hierarchy.
But for the last couple of decades we have been accumulating examples of living thing known to be designed by humans. We have quite a few food crops that have been engineered by humans. We even have industrial bacteria that have been engineered, for example to produce human insulin.
The distinctive characteristic feature of living things whose history we know for certain, and which have been designed by humans, is that their genomes do not fit the nested hierarchy. In other words, we can separate living things into two categories: those that could have arisen via incremental change and those that could not not have arisen via incremental change.