I’m going to let ENV readers in on a little secret: When many of us in the intelligent design (ID) movement read the arguments coming from our critics, we’re surprised at their low quality and style.
That’s the CSC which had to shell out $110,000 to settle a viewpoint-discrimination lawsuit over the Center’s canceling a screening of Darwin’s Dilemma.
Based on new research by Joseph Thornton and Sean Carroll and colleagues, it increasingly appears that either we are very lucky or we are intelligently designed.
Only a die-hard ID-critic would find it “absurd” to actually test neo-Darwinian explanations on a mathematical level.
It seems that Boudry, Blancke and Braekman misunderstand both Behe’s argument and the nature of the scientific process: the fact that a theory (in this case, Darwinism) can be saved from refutation by proposing wildly speculative and unfalsifiable scenarios does not mean that theory holds merit.