Most Darwinians claim that Evolution is dependent upon:Occam didn't say doodlesquat about "degrees of freedom." It's about overall simplicity and economy of supposition. However complicated the evolution scenario may be--it can have elements beyond mutation and natural selection when you get into the dirty details--it's a logically consistent, known scenario that has no funny external invisible elements. It only has to assume that when/if we learn more about what has happened/can happen/does happen we could in theory completely understand our history. (We'll never actually gather enough data to do that, of course, simply because some of the data record is gone.)
1. Appropriate environment,
2. Natural Selection, and
3. Random Mutations.Most ID-er's claim that ID is dependent upon:
1. Appropriate environment and
2. Intelligent Designer.3 degrees of freedom versus 2, yet you picked the loser and wrongly ascribed Occam's Razor as your reasoning.
ID has to assume that what we know now is misleading--amounting to a red herring--because naturalistic explanations can never be sufficient. It further has to assume forces and facts not in evidence: magical beings or supertechnological aliens amounting to the same thing.
That's at least 1 against 2, favor evolution.
Why does it have to assume that? Where does Intelligent Design preclude Evolution as being mutally exclusive in its theory?
Please, show me how you drew such a conclusion.