CC
Since many specific examples of your misrepresentations have been pointed
out over the past several months, I won't bother to go into the matter
further here. The interested reader can visit the post mentioned and see
some examples.
But, that was beside the point of the post that Stephen is responding to.
Where's the causal principle of design theory? Where are the testable
implications of design theory (ANY testable implications)? Where is the
*science* in design theory?
Below is what may be the key paragraph of the post Stephen is responding to.
Perhaps he will get to it in another post.
"The big problem, as I said in an earlier post, is that ID theory has
*no* causal principle, no *mechanism* to make it explanatory. It
posits a cause, but no causal *principle*. Even if you believe that
naturalistic evolutionary theory is false, you have to grant that it
at least *tries* to make sense of the data. It offers an explanation
of *why* genetically more-complex organisms do not appear
until *after* simpler ones do. It offers an explanation of why the
offspring of organisms are not genetically identical to there
parent- organisms. It offers an explanation of why animal
breeding works (and even why, after a time, there is a slow-down
to further breeding along any one "dimension" until the rest of the
genome has a chance to adjust to and re-integrate with the
modified genes). And this all comes from *two* principles:
Variation and the need of the replicator to have characteristics
that enable it to survive in it's environment long enough to
reproduce sufficiently to perpetuate itself." (Cogan C., "A Rant Against
Anti-Science," 1999)