Intelligent design requires evidence: Ah, but what can be considered evidence?
by O'Leary on October 28th, 2006 - revisited!
In comment #16 in this thread, Joseph remarked:
And I truly think that once people realize the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck, they will see that the data is best explained by ID. Sheer-dumb-luck is a science stopper whereas ID offers many investigative possibilities.
Joseph, just like O'Leary seems to be fond of strawmen. Given that the materialistic alternative to ID is NOT sheer-dumb-luck Joseph has told an obvious falsehood. But does ID offer many investigative possibilities? Oh, Yes!! In fact, an infinite amount of them. And there is no way to say, after an investigation, which is the best explanation, given that ID's central tenet is that living things are best explained by an intelligent designer whose nature is not specified. Any investigation will support at least some form of designer in some sort of way.