However, there is one thing that always bugs me about ID opponents: They often present pure speculation, based on absolutely no hard evidence, as established fact. For example, you’ll hear, “The way evolution produces complex, functionally integrated biological machinery is through a process called co-option. Here’s how it works…” They should be honest and say, “Some biologists speculate that biological components that served other functions can be co-opted to assemble new machinery that performs a new function. However, there is no hard evidence that this process actually takes place, and no detailed, testable proposals for how random mutations could engineer such a process.”

Of course, they also always leave out an explanation for the hard stuff. Where did the assembly instructions come from? They too must be irreducibly complex, since a partially assembled motor is of no use even if all the parts are available.

I sometimes wonder if these people are actually aware of what they are doing. Perhaps — because they are convinced that such a process _must_ take place, because the underlying theory _has_ to be true — they have deluded themselves into thinking they are providing facts and explanations instead of unsubstantiated speculation.

Dave T.

“Bill, I’m sorry… Go ahead Michael, I’m sorry…”

Michel: “I wasn’t saying anything.” .
Wood “…Oh, I’m sorry…”

Whoops! Interruption failed! Better accuse Dembski of dishonesty [45:18], quick! Change topic!