[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The problem here, is that you are offering an apples and oranges argument. Evolution is not the issue in discussion here. ID is.

My challenge was to those holding to either side to logically validate their positions. Attempting to discredit ID by presenting an argument for and in behalf of evolution is a strawman. In order for that argument to be logically valid, then you have to assume that your premise, evolution and ID are polar opposites, is true. Any such assumptions, themselves, must be supported logically. That is the name of the game.

So your task, if you believe that proving ID automatically disproves evolution is to show how, logically, believing in one automatically generates disbelief in the other. Then you have to show how evolution is logically valid and ID is logically invalid.

Since I believe that you are doomed to be foresworn in trying to logically prove your premise, would it not be better to concede that point? That way, you are relieved of the responsibility of logically validating your premise and evolution and are only left with the problem of logically invalidating ID.

Granted, that logic alone does not actually prove or disprove a position. But a proven position should be able to be logically defended. Otherwise, the position is not valid or not very well understood.

[js1138]

My position is that ID is a tautology unless accompanied by a theory of design, one that says something substantial and predictive about the process of design, the motives and methods of the designer, the processes that implement the design.

Without some forensic statement about the process and implementation of design, it is simply a statement about patterns.

You cannot discuss this without reference to the theory of evolution, which is really about the history and methods of design. In other words, both ID and “Darwinism” acknowledge the existence of design, but “Darwinism” explains how the designs came about, the history of change and the algorithm by which living things adapt and change. ID has no equivalent explanatory theory and is therefore scientifically vacuous.