[Rudder]

...the scientific evidence points to the idea of an intelligent designer.

That's the crux of the professor's problem: There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID.

[pleikumud]

There could be more than one intelligent designer.

[RobbyS]

Forget the Darwinian controversy. Gonzalez is an astronomer, and his sin is not accept the many-world theory, which is founded on no empirical data.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“That’s the crux of the professor’s problem: There isn’t any scientific evidence supportive of ID.”

To state for the 98th time, Prof Gonzalez was not teaching ID in the classroom.
Not to be rude, but you may want to read on the facts of the case before commenting.
Gonzalez is being persecuted for his beliefs; mainly by a atheist “religious studies” studies professor named Hector Avalos.

[sirchtruth]

That's the crux of the professor's problem: There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID.

What about the digital design of DNA? What about ORDER in general?

[keats5]

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry

Before you scoff at the author and setting, please explain why this is "not scientific." I admit this was offered in a religious forum, but the talk was limited to scientific arguments. Besides, most academic settings would censor the speaker.

[mjolnir]

There isn’t ANY scientific evidence for design?

So Richard Dawkins is incorrect when he says nature gives the appearance of design?

The vast majority of cosmologists, whether working astronomy or other fields, are wrong when they study the anthropic coincidences— those coincidences are just in their head?

Remember, what you’re saying is that there is NO scientific evidence for design in nature. That’s the sort of needlessly strong statement that bespeaks of a level of certainty that is rather unscientific itself, unless one is talking only about mathematics.

The fact is, there are very few hypotheses as venerable as that of design in nature that have NO evidence for them. I realize hyperbole is inevitable in a forum devoted mostly to political issues, but such sweeping statements are generally out of place when talking about science-— see “the Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

[sphinx]

That's the crux of the professor's problem: There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID.

I understand the difference between a statistical inference and "evidence." What I object to in this debate is the heated assertion that a statistical inference -- in this and apparently only this -- case cannot be admitted into the discussion.

[editor-surveyor]

"There isn't any scientific evidence supportive of ID."

There isn't a shred of scientific evidence that fails to support an intelligent designer.

[Theo]

You are evidence of an intelligent designer. Our conversation is evidence of an intelligent designer.