We were discussing mechanisms.
I am.
You apparently don't understand, so I'll explain.
If I were to say, for example, that Thomas Jefferson enjoyed Madeira sherry, I would need to cite a primary source since I can't just make random assertions about an individual. I would have to cite a primary source, say a letter written from Thomas Jefferson to his cousin Alfred in which he says: " I find Madeira sherry quite delicious." Or similar words to that effect.
Likewise, if I am saying that ID advocates say there is a "hole" in physics, I would need to cite a text by one or more ID advocates making that very assertion. Otherwise, it's not a primary source - it's just hearsay, speculation.
Just because you say that ID advocates say something does not make it so.
You were discussing evolution, before the molecular mechs were known. Neither genetics, or evolution were w/o evidence at Darwin's time. Hypothesis, supported by evidence, with no refutation is theory. Evolution was a theory even back then.
"If I were to say, for example, that Thomas Jefferson enjoyed Madeira sherry, I would need to cite a primary source since I can't just make random assertions about an individual."
Sure, the word "enjoy" is a qualitative adjective. Now change it to "drank" the verb. Know all one needs is evidence that he drank the stuff.
I do not except feebly connected analogy as logical refutation of anything.
"Likewise, if I am saying that ID advocates say there is a "hole" in physics, I would need to cite a text by one or more ID advocates making that very assertion. Otherwise, it's not a primary source - it's just hearsay, speculation."
LOL! This is science here. I just proved what they claim. They don't have to say anything whatsoeever. If you say ID is not science, fine, just keep it out of the classroom. Else, you have this proof to deal with that says it's not and all the scientists telling you it's not science.
It's science, deal with the facts and proofs.