But the claims of IDs main proponents cannot be accepted on face value. There is no objective measure for detecting design in situations where we don't have clear direct information. (We know, for instance, the origin of watches.) Claims that such have been developed do not withstand critical scrutiny. There are evolutionary scenarios to produce irreducibly complex structures, despite the ubiquitious pretense among ID-ists that there are none. And of course, as Dover trial Judge Jones noted, ID is a repackaging of creationism.
No, it indeed "isn't science," Mr. Peterson. That's the big deal.
Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.
What a conundrum...A Darwinist inferring that cancer is a bad thing. One would think that cancer fits nicely into evolution. To a Darwinist, that would be a good thing, no?
Accountability is, in the end, what the whole debate boils down to. The thought of being held accountable for your actions does not fit well with the naturalist's mindset.
This is also a conundrum for one that wishes to be affiliated with conservatism...being accountable for your actions is one of its chief precepts.
I suggest you pick a side, and stop straddling the fence. Unless, of course, you are not 100% sure of your convictions. If that is the case, at least state your position as such. Committed naturalists can't have it both ways (unless the courts should happen to intervene on your behalf and declare, by judicial fiat, that I can no longer question your posts.)
Good day.