[[Their tendency to try and argue that ID is proven because it cannot be disproven, and the any competing theory is disprove because it has not been proven.]]
that isn’t even remotely close to what ID proposes- Cripes- You are basing your opinion based on lay people- ID states that nature is not capable of creating irreducible complexity, it shows why it’s not able to, it points to Baraminology which shows discontinuity in the fossil recird, it points to biological impossibilities, it points to chemical impossibilities, it points to a violation of the 2LOT, and it also shows why an intelligence is needed behins irreducible complexity- which Macroevolutionists glibbly wave away claiming they ‘just don’t know how nature could have done it, that htey haven’t ‘discovered how nature could have done it yet’, and at best, give ‘explanations’ for natural evolution that show the need for itnellgient design’
Let’s rteview the basic arguments, and see which is more reasonable
ID: Macroevolution is mathematically impossible
Evo: You creationsits just don’t understand the math and how eovlution works (note- we’re NEVER given an answer as to how nature could beat out hte odds)
ID: MacroEvolution violates chemical laws
Evo: You creationsits don’t udnerstand how chemical evolution could lead to biological life- OR- Abiogenisis isn’t part of TOE, so it’s not a valid coutner-argument to TOE
ID: MacroEvoltuion biologically impossible
Evo: It is not biologically impossible- IF cells were subjected to such and such, and IF they were protected in such and such a way, and IF certain processes lined up just right, and IF a cell underwent certain genetic changes, then Macroevolution could happen (note- it’s never shown how mutaitons could produce NEW non species specific information in ever icnreasing complexity)
ID: Life’s structures are irreducibly complex, and hte heirarchal complexity of metainformation can not be produced in an upward manner, and must be top down (in otherwords, metainformation MUST exist FIRST, it can’t be derived from simple chemicals nor from nature_)
Evo: Irreducible complexity is a farce. Miller showed how complex blood clotting ‘could have’ occured. (Bzzzzzt- Miller perfectly demonstrated the NEED for an intleligent designer, and perfectly illustrated that nature, left to it’s own, could NOT have produced the cells and structures that Miller intleligently designed in his ‘explanation’)
ID: The fossil record stops at discontinuity
Evo: ID doesn’t understand how hte fossil record happened, nor how homology points to common descent- just because htere aren’t any missing links doesn’t mean they didn’t exist- OR- ID simply doesn’t accept the ‘missing links’ (which are species that are seperated by supposedly millions of years, are compeltely different in size, shape, internal structures- but are claiemd to be ‘missing links’ simply based on scant few homological similarities)
ID: There are no missing links
Evo: ID doesn’t understand how hte fossil record works- Fossils are extremely rare
On and on it goes- To state that ID opposes evolution simply because it ‘hasn’t been proven’ is a blatant misrepresentation of why ID rejects macroevolution- ID rejects it because it violates scientific principles, and because it lacks evidentiary support and is based on assumptions that defy the actual evidence
The question was with regard to the proponents of the theory, not the theory itself.
If by "proponenets" it was intended that I limit my observatations to the actual authors of the theory and disregard the arguments of those not directly involved with it, I can do that.