[js1138]

Natural selection, to be valid, requires a rather specific history of life on earth. The fact that most of the hard evidence of that history has been erased means that it is difficult to reconstruct in detail. There will always be arguments over details.

But for ID to challenge natural selection, it must propose an alternate history that would expect to find some different kind of evidence. Your hypothetical insulin gene is a step in the right direction, but to be science, you would need to predict a specific finding and give a reason why you expect to find it.

In other words, you would need to predict the finding of something completely out of place, but which makes sense to your designer. To do this you need to specify something of the means and motives of the designer, and those means and motives have to explain everything in biology -- bunnies and herpes -- the whole nine yards.

If you can't specify the means and motives of the designer, how on earth do you expect to infer design?

[Heartlander]

But for ID to challenge natural selection, it must propose an alternate history that would expect to find some different kind of evidence.

And I asked ---
Are you stating that the Darwin hypothesis was sufficient for the paradigm shift in science that now excludes all telic arguments? Natural Selection caused the paradigm shift?

Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life

Impact of forty years of advances in chemistry on evolutionary theory

Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?

Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories