Granville Sewell of UD
Let me rephrase that one :
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: “If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?” (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)
If the answer is yes, we just haven’t found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that “ID is not science” immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.
As you point out, you believe that irreducible complex biological features exist. And that you found thousands of them.
That’s a comforting a priori for you maybe, but it remains an hypothesis. You should start proving that IC bio features exist, then start the discussion. For the moment, your thousands of them is just a measure of your ignorance of biology.
If people believing in ghosts can find one, and propose it to tests, that doesn’t make their actual quest a scientific approach, a science. It remains as much spiritual as Intelligent Design, isn’t it ?
Why one would accept your quest as scientific and not theirs ? Or do you ? There is no the slightest part of scientific approach in ID.
And a last question for the day’s idiot. Do you believe (also) sophisms could replace scientific inquiry ? I don’t think so.