Letter to the Editor

[Lord Zentei]

You know, drachefly; why don't you just drop it? You've been chewed up enough already.

As for your first point, there are a wide range of ways in which life can change that is not akin to evolutionary theory. For instance, Lysenkoism. So it is a false dilemma.

As for your third point, Rutherford's model had far and away more theoretical underpinnings than ID's bullshit, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Of course lack of evidence is damning, but so is the impossibility - even in principle - of crafting a mecnanism.

I'm not sure wtf you're driving at with point number two, so I'll not bother with that.

[Admiral Valdemar]

How is any of that even remotely comparable? Hypotheses existed before testing was even done, models drawn up based on previous knowledge and data as to what the structure of the atom, relativity or what have you would be like. ID proposes nothing other than evolution is false or that it is true, but only because some deity or older alien species decided to seed life here. Ignoring the lack of anything scientific there, you've now just moved the goalposts since now you have to explain how the fuck this deity or alien came into being without reverting to some ad infinitum loop backwards. It's the chicken and the egg paradox.

The rest of this thread is just hot air from one corner with concrete rebuttals from the other. For someone supposedly backing evolution, drachefly's made a damn good go at playing devil's advocate to the point of absurdity.

If you accept evolution, then just drop this. It's only looking like sympathy for the devil which is entirely not needed with so many morons in the US believing such tripe for real.

[Wyrm]

I volunteer to answer drachefly's Parte the Second:

You falsely imagine that ID, the way it is usually stated, is the best hypothesis under at least one set of data. It isn't; its suboptimal to at least the "focused ID" hypothesis which proposes the intelligent agent adheres to a particular, codified set of design principles that is known, and which happens to fit the data we observe. (Take note: this is not the brand of ID you advocate!) You have very little idea how much hedging your bets to the degree ID does hurts you -- the blow delivered by even a slightly focused hypothesis is absolutely fatal.

Otherwise, what the Admiral said.