Evidence for ID

Patience is very much a virtue when exchanging views with internet Darwinists who mistake Darwinian concepts for sound scientific evidence. This from another CAID post:


>What you didn’t understand then, and you still don’t understand now, is that ID, as a theory, cannot “win” by default. Unless and until you all can cough up something resembling evidence for your theory - something more substantive than a list of neo-Darwinian concepts that you don’t personally understand, that is - there’s no reason to subscribe to ID as a theory.

Bradford: One indication of an effect resulting from intelligence is that the effect would not occur in the absence of intelligence. Evaluating current origins theories and finding them wanting is a first step toward an intelligent inference. On the other side of the coin IDers should follow a pattern established by Darwinists. Darwinists have used an argument from analogy as positive evidence for common descent. They first looked at similar morphologies and later at shared genomic features and concluded that the similarities would be what is expected of an evolution paradigm and hence would be evidence for common descent.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. IDers examine the pre-established encoding conventions enabling protein translation as well as self-correcting genomic features found in even relatively "simple" unicellular organisms and conclude that encoded means of transmitting genetic information combined with a mechanism that prevents the corruption of that code is what is expected of an intelligent causal paradigm and is hence evidence for intelligent design.