[Fester Chugabrew]

But for you to claim that now such detailed rebuttal has not been posted . . .

You know I made no such claim, and as your link makes clear, the issue is being addressed with considerably more care than your remark about the shape of the earth.

[js1138]

It was a metaphor, and I will defend it.

1. There is no controversy in science over the shape of the earth.
2. There is no controversy in science over the age of the earth or the age of the universe; at least nothing that would change accepted numbers by more than 10 percent.
3. There is no controversy in science over the geologic column
4. There is no controversy in science over common descent
5. There is no controversy over the age of fossils, give or take about five percent.
6. There is no controversy in science over the constancy of the speed of light.
7. There is nothing in science that points to a coding function for 95 percent of human DNA.

All but the first of these statements are constantly challenged on FR and at hundreds of creationist and ID websites.

There are some interesting fringe theories in science, such as ones concerning the origin of petroleum. One of the things that makes them interesting is that they are subject to experiment. Even ESP is subject to experiment. Oddly enough, people continue to experiment in those fringe areas where it is possible to experiment, even though they are sometimes ridiculed.

What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment. There is simply nothing about ID that makes it different from science except its assertion that traditional science can't explain certain things. This is an assertion which, when made sufficiently specific, is constantly in retreat. What makes it maddening to scientists is that there is an implied moral imperative not to attempt to explain certain things.