To help ID/creationists understand why they are not presenting evidence by merely asserting that something is designed, perhaps this analogy will help.
There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.
That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.
There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.
That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.
Upvote
0