Setting your use of the outdated term “Darwinism” aside, I’d say none.

Exactly right. ID “predicts” any data imaginable. Whatever it is, its that way because thats the way the Designer did it. Such a position is scientifically impotent.

But all that stuff about the Lords supposed mercy, wisdom, and knowledge is pure assertion.

And what about the predators? Is it a sign of the Lords mercy to let them starve to death by making the prey too fast for them to catch?

Demonstrating that the flagellum is not truly irreducibly complex; that it could in fact have arisen in a step wise manner that evolution requires, would not falsify ID. It would only falsify the argument that the flagellum is irreducibly complex in that manner. In other words Miller is attacking the “evolution sucks” part of ID, the “therefore God did it” part remains untestable.

Yes, we can falsify individual claims made by ID advocates, but falsifying these claims does not falsify ID. Nothing can falsify ID itself.

Perhaps we should demand they settle on how long ago it was all designed before we bother to debate with Them. All that the ID-iots agree on so far is that Archbishop Ussher may have been wrong. How wrong varies along a spectrum from just one day through to a continuing process of design. Make up your minds, for God’s sake!

Why would an intelligent designer create this? Must be one sick puppy…

Because God had another bet with Satan?

“Recommend you ask Josh what predictions ID makes. Just one will do.”

I predict that anyone who talks about predictions ID makes will never accept the science of evolution.

So why is the Cheetah faster?

facts > Gazelles are the Cheetah’s favorite morsel. The Cheetah is the fastest land mammal. Guess what is the second fastest land mammal? Correcto! > the Gazelle! Think about it > why would this be? Because God likes a good race? No, because natural selection demands this outcome.

Recommend you ask Josh what predictions ID makes. Just one will do.

The flagellum actually is irreducibly complex. It can’t function as a flagellum without all its parts. What Miller pointed out is that many people have shown that the present irreducibilty is quite likely the result of evolutionary processes in which subsets of the present structure were selected for other functions and then cobbled together.

Right, that is what I was getting at, though I could have spelled it out better (like you did).

Thanks

“Demonstrating that the flagellum is not truly irreducibly complex; that it could in fact have arisen in a step wise manner that evolution requires, would not falsify ID. It would only falsify the argument that the flagellum is irreducibly complex in that manner. In other words Miller is attacking the “evolution sucks” part of ID, the “therefore God did it” part remains untestable.”

The flagellum actually is irreducibly complex. It can’t function as a flagellum without all its parts. What Miller pointed out is that many people have shown that the present irreducibilty is quite likely the result of evolutionary processes in which subsets of the present structure were selected for other functions and then cobbled together.

Apparently the Lord in his wisdom and mercy doesn’t care about the predators starving to death. If I were God, I would make everything vegetarian.