For all the talk about proof, proof for ID there are many reasons for inference throughout the thread. Much like common ancestry is nothing but inference and is accepted by those calling for "absolute" proof from ID.
ID holds to better explanations than evolution as evolution fails to explain many features of life. step by step processes cannot create irreducibly complex structures and that has been explained many times. Evolution cannot account for language, code, or the building instructions in DNA. These are all inferred to be intelligence at work because that is the only source of specified functional information known today
The sudden addition of information in the fossil record followed by stasis, shows no gradualism as predicted by evolution. Fails again. ID holds that the only source of information is intelligence.
Now, the evolutionist will argue about "definitions" like they and not the evidence are paramount importance. They (you) disagree with ID on what information, specified complexity is. You also deny DNA is a language, or code, or building blueprint of life's construction. That is fine. The information is all there as to why ID supporters support the theory.
Time and time again I have presented why evolution fails because ID holds to a better explanation so I have shown why evolution cannot "create" anything. The lack of rebuts to the specific problems is loud and clear. It seems evolutionists need to stay on task, that is ridicule, deny, mock, and dismiss anything ID says to evade the problems with evolution hypothesis. This includes the continual conflation of creationism and ID. The reason is easy enough, just look at the mocking videos and cartoons posted on this thread alone.
What is surprising to me is how and why a self professed believer would go along with these these attacks on belief. Especially when theistic evolutionists have no scientific legs to stand on either. Yet nothing is said why the atheist mocks and ridicules. Not only is nothing said, but it seems some join in.
ID starts with science, and makes inferences from what is observed from science. ID goes no further in explanation that what science explains or suggests. ID holds that many features in life where evolution fails, an intelligent agent can be inferred. That agent cannot be proved, only inferred. The same way common descent cannot be proved, only inferred. ID holds intelligence is a better explanation in regard to evolution mechanisms have not been able to demonstrate how complex inter-related systems arise. Evolution cannot explain where information comes from or how new information is infused into life. Convergence? just a idea, no empirical evidence. Gene duplication? not new just existing, and on and on as evolution fails to satisfy.
Where natural processes fail to deliver, intelligence is inferred. Observation, and knowledge of intelligent agents today leads ID to that inference. This is not a new concept. Dark matter is inferred without any evidence it exists. That has been accepted by evolution scientists for decades.
The only rub here is God. If ID is right, then God might exist. For the atheist, this is unacceptable so ID must be ridiculed out of existence just like God must be. The theistic evolutionist? Another story. But somehow both like to think they stand on higher ground than those with a minority scientific possition. Both joining forces to attack other believers (in the case of theistic evolutionists).
Some believe I guess that it is better to belong to the consensus even if it is wrong, than to risk ridicule and mocking for an idea that may be true. Consensus will change, science has changed its collective mind many times. Every time shouting from the high ground that this time they are right, this time, they are standing on solid ground. Only having to adjust that stance later. Some of us know there is only one solid ground, and science isn't it.
Speaking of consensus, evolution is at 16%. Yes, it is much higher for those who have been indoctrinated. Most of which are only participating in "group thought" not really knowing the evidence either way. They have always heard there is mountains of evidence so they regurgitate the same flawed nonsense. If, when the flaws are better known, that number is going to drop closer to the general public number.
The athiests fights hard, they have to. They are an endangered species at low single digits. The theist need not worry, the lion has no teeth. In fact, the big shadow on the wall is just that, a shadow of something very small. Evolution is not the world wide consensus is it made out to be. IF it was, there wouldn't be organizations like the National Center for Selling Evolution to promote it.
Science does fine without common ancestry thank you. Beginning with Mendel, genetics would be flourishing today without Darwin's atheistic intrusion. Quite likely genetics would be much further along without the constraints of a mindset that binds free thought. For example "junk DNA". Look at all the years wasted by believing it was junk and not important in regard to disease. How else is humanity suffering because of evolution (common descent) hypothesis?
Origins are not in dispute, no one has a clue how things began.
Evolution is not in dispute in regard to variation, mutations and selection as it is observed, and there is mountains of evidence supporting it.
That leaves common ancestry. No evidence to prove it. Some evidence to support inference to it, more that calls it into question. Which is what has been done on this thread.
glad you liked them though.
