- Were they refuted exclusively with metaphysical arguments? No. Leading Darwinists often rebut ID arguments with scientific arguments. Then when a design theorist rebuts the Darwinist’s scientific arguments by pointing to contrary evidence in the natural world,...
- You see, Darwinism does a horrible job of explaining all sorts evidence in biology and paleontology (e.g., irreducibly complex devices like the mammalian eye, the bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting, the sudden appearance of numerous animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, the lack of any examples of macroevolution).
- Quoting "philospher" and non-scientist Meyer: To assert that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic simply assumes the point at issue. Of course intelligent design is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific?
- Some say it isn't science because the proposed design isn't observable. Well neither is common descent. Others say design theory isn't science because it can't be tested in a lab. On this point, Derbyshire and design theorists are in agreement.
Thanks to Mr. Carter for pointing out this new bit of dishonesty from the creationists.