> That *any* distributions are intelligently designed means
> that you can't rule out ID as a potential cause for their
> origin.
Quick, you better tell the guys at SETI!
They've been ruling out a large number of very organized signals as naturally occurring rather than artificial signals of intelligence.
> You can't honestly claim that ID is "unscientific."
ID is worse than wrong. It's useless. Neither it (generically) nor ANY of its proponents have put forward a single testable, falsifiable hypothesis for a phenomenon that can't be adequately (even better) explained by the dominant paradigm.
Does this "prove" that they're wrong?
Not necessarily, but it does relegate them to the realm of speculation until such time as they do.
Let's take a fairly recent example: special relativity pissed off a lot of physicists. Einstein took a LOT of flack for his paper. But he said: Hey, if I'm right, when you put up clocks on a pair of satellites accelerating away from each other, when you look at the clocks again, they'll be different.
It was testable.
He was right.
When the IDers come up with something similar, do let us know.
Until then, throwing stones at evolution is NOT a sufficient argument for ID.
Organization is an incomplete superset of, not subset of, intelligence. Ergo, SETI is right to rule out organized signals that coincide with a star's rotational speed, for instance.
That you miss the above is unsurprising, however, given how badly you've played this debate so far.
You aren't listening/reading/comprehending. You've even contracted your own breakthrough in post #252.
ID isn't wrong...ID has proved to be the explanation for genetically altered pigs. See post #255.
ID is testable...ID has tested positive as the explanation for genetically altered pigs. See post #255.
ID is falsifiable...where ever there is no bias in an Origin, there is no ID.
Thus, on *every* claim that you've made (even contradicting your own post #252), you've been conclusively shown to be in error.
Consequently you are beginning to bore me. It's time that you handed me off to one of your betters. Surely some Darwinist out there somewhere can put up a better debate than simply ignoring genetically altered pigs while simultaneously being bewildered by simple subsets versus supersets.