The problem with “obviated design” such is argued using Mt. Rushmore as an example, is that there was a time when geological formations were attributed to design, flood geology, and other “intelligent” factors… this was all because we had no other explanation at the time.

Now, however, we know such theories to be ridiculous. Geological formations, even the most amazing, are caused by geological and environmental factors over long periods of time.

My question is this: Given that this is a useful analogy for the issues at hand… the notion that we cannot yet fully explain all aspects of evolution… does that make ID right? Does it make evolution wrong?

Or does it simply mean that like geology once was… evolution is still a young science? Will ID, like flood geology and catastrophism… one day look like a ridiculously short-sighted error in judgement?

The point being that from a logical stand point, evolution’s alleged inability to explain certain phenomenae… says nothing whatsoever about the positive or negative veracity of its established claims.

Until ID can muster scientific evidence that can be recognized as scientific without changing the definition of science (a laughable sidestep, I should add, and one that will end up making Kansas look immensely foolish no matter what happens), it should not be taught in science classrooms.

Well, not unless they’re going to start teaching Vampire biology or including Shangri-La in geography class… I mean really, if scientific explanations are no longer required to be “natural” or “empirical”… why not?

I expect that this comment will disappear shortly, I will, as such, post it on my blog as well, along with any deletion information, so that people will be sure to take note of deep irony apparent in accusing “Darwinists” of refusing scrutiny… then deleting all challenging comments from your blog.

Certainly, negative argumentation has it’s place in science. But ultimately a scientific theory requires some positive content. So if “intelligent design theory” is going to become a real scientific theory, it will have to explain exactly when, where, and how the intelligent designer created living beings with specified complexity. For example, when, where, and how exactly did the intelligent designer create bacterial flagella? Such a positive theory would be testable and falsifiable. Scientists could go into their laboratories to devise experiments to test such a theory.

But, as I have argued in my book DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, proponents of intelligent design have preferrred to employ a purely negative rhetoric. “Design” is inferred negatively by the elimination of “necessity” and “chance.” This won’t do if intelligent design is to become a mature science.

Four days ago, I posted about Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski’s blog post calling for bringing evolutionists before a government panel so the truth could be squeezed out of them (Borrowing a Page From Lysenko, Intelligent Design Theorist D…

The other side dreads being put under critical scrutiny. They know their theory will not be seen favorably once it is examined by the standards of real science. Phil Johnson was right, we need “Darwin on Trial”. He foreswaw what must be done.