Joined: Oct. 2005
I think you may have misinterpreted my post, which was directed to evopeach. I agree with you completely that it's up to ID apologists like evopeach to explain why virtually the entire scientific community is wrong in thinking the new synthesis of neodarwinian evolution and genetics is up to the task of explaining the evolution of life. So far they've failed spectacularly to do so. Generally their response to critiques of ID is, "yeah, I've read that, and it's crap."
There's this one guy on telic thoughts who does that. I gave him 5,000 words (with extensive references) on why IC, CSI, and the EF have all been thoroughly discredited as supporting a design inference. His response: "Your arguments weren't any good."
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity
"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams