I cited Darwin as follows:
PN>"He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it,
PN>must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal
PN>having habits and structure not at all in agreement. What can be plainer
PN>than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming?
PN>yet there are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely or never go
PN>near the water..." (_Origin of Species_ [1859, 185])
Stephen Gooch asked:
>I don't understand your argument. Darwin is writing about a rudimentary
>feature, kinda like - why do us guys have nipples. How do you get from that to
>ID is useful?
Why are male nipples, or webbed feet on upland geese, surprising at all?
How is it that they stand out against the rest of nature and seem to call
for a special kind of explanation?
Because a theory, ID (Paley's version, let's say), told us not to expect
to see such things.
That's a useful theory, or, more modestly, a theory that says something
about the world. It rules out certain possibly observable states
of affairs. When we then *observe* those states of affairs, we have
a puzzle calling for explanation.
Paul Nelson