Replies

"You are missing the point, but evolutionists are masters of missing the point. The point is that I provided a prediction that, if false, would discredit ID theory."

No, you didn't. If a scientist COULD produce what you put as the test, a single-celled organism evolving into a vertebrate, it would still in NO WAY invalidate ID.

All the ID'er would have to say is either,

1) Since the organism evolved through the intervention of an intelligent designer (humans), this is an example of ID

2) The intelligent designer could have intervened in the lab to direct the evolution of this organism.

The example is also ludicrous though because it is IMPOSSIBLE to evolve a single-celled organism into a vertebrate in anything close to the lifetime of any individual. You can spend a thousand years and not expect to come any noticeably closer. Your example is a cartoon version of how evolution works.

"And isn't it convenient that evolutionists have a loophole because providing any actual direct evidence for evolution would "take too long."

This is incredibly dishonest. Speciation has been observed in the lab. For you to move the goalposts and ONLY allow as evidence for evolution the evolution of entire kingdoms or orders is horse manure.

"No, you didn't. If a scientist COULD produce what you put as the test, a single-celled organism evolving into a vertebrate, it would still in NO WAY invalidate ID."

The point is that *evolutionists* would claim it discredits ID theory. Are you denying that? Are you claiming that if macroevolution (you specify the extent of macroevolution) were observed in the lab, evolutionists would *not* claim that it invalidates ID theory? If so, you are either incredibly naive, or you are just a bald-faced liar.

For you to move the goalposts and ONLY allow as evidence for evolution the evolution of entire kingdoms or orders is horse manure.

Yes, but look at it from the opposite side of the fence - if you allow only impossible-to-obtain evidence to cause you to re-evaluate your worldview, your worldview is in absolutely no danger of ever being challenged. It's positively bulletproof, safe from all those nasty ideas and facts out there that might disturb the comfort of knowing that you've got it all figured out. If you're worried about seeing nasty things, the safest way to avoid ever seeing anything nasty is to put your own eyes out.

Some may consider whether the "cure" is worse than the disease, but there is a certain logic there - the sleeper does not wish to awaken, and so will not be disturbed.

I would say that if design is such an obvious source of biological structures, then ID folks should be unraveling the principles of design as part of their research.

There are really two aspects they should be working on

The first is the design principles needed to make new creatures that are individually viable.

The second is it design principles needed to make sure new creatures will be competitive in the ever changing ecosystem.

I would be interested in the kind of theoretical work ID advocates have done to solve these problems.