I like to summarize the points that I’ve made in a debate over at telicthoughts. ID theory is certainly different than Darwinism. Darwinism claims that it has a successful explanatory process for biodiversity. It does not. No matter how many times Darwinists repeat the mantra that small changes will accumulate to major biodiversity. It doesn’t make it real. There are no observable macroevolutionary changes through natural processes. Why is it unreasonable to demand a “videotape” of the historical macroevolution, when Darwinists can demand ID to produce a designer? Besides Darwinism not only fails at producing such a “videotape” of the creation event, it can’t even reproduce any of the macroevolutionary changes in the lab. Show us Darwin’s God.
The very nature of the ID theoretical does not require it to identify the process of how an artifact was design. Recognizing, detecting and identifying an artifact as design, does NOT require knowledge of the designer or the method by which it was designed. Several examples have been given in yesterday’s posting to demonstrate this fact. If it is legitimate for Darwinists to infer naturalism without any empirical details, why would ID need to know the designer to infer design. Darwinists also conflate the theoretical premise of ID and Darwinism by imposing a mechanism on ID. This is completely bogus. A mechanism is a method of deriving origins. If you do not know how an artifact came about, your methodology requires you to determine a mechanism to explain the origination of that artifact. This is a must for materialistic naturalism. ID does not require a mechanism because the origination has already been determined. What Darwinism is trying to do, is to impose their failures onto ID. The failure is in Darwinism not in ID.