Replies

So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID. But your assertion that you cannot disprove anything is a little bit over the top since many concepts over time have been disproven.

Many mathematical concepts cannot be proven. They only cannot be disproven. Thus "proving a negative" by inference.

Your assertion that we need to have an explanation for the existence of the designer is another strawman. That assumes a perfect knowledge of all the variables. One could as readily ask for an explanation of the existence of evolution. Both are philosophical questions that ultimately delve beyond man's current finite capacity to understand.

ID has proven a better fit than random chance. As many evolutionary theorists ask IDers to prove the concept of ID, I would ask for the same courtesy from them in proving random chance. The fact is, that random chance is a very poor fit. Even evolutionists admit that the universe is governed by laws and rules. And yet they also wish us to believe that evolution is governed by random chance. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

ID has proven a better fit than random chance. As many evolutionary theorists ask IDers to prove the concept of ID, I would ask for the same courtesy from them in proving random chance. The fact is, that random chance is a very poor fit.

"Random Chance" is a straw man. It is not what evolutionists believe. For ID to have any meaning at all, you must postulate something about the designer.

So you admit that you cannot experimentally disprove ID.

This was agreed to earlier precisely because it's a meaningless statement.

It's exactly the same as saying that we cannot experimentally disprove the idea that a giant chicken from Pasadena named Harry created the cosmos.