This time, I’m happy to point out that others are specifically pointing out the logical flaws of the Darwinists.
The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims. But if it doesn’t make falsifiable claims, then it can’t be said to have made claims that have been found false. Yet this is exactly what they charge.
Indeed. IC is falsifiable and the Darwinists obviously agree, since they claim that they’ve falsified it. Yet, ID science is not science because it’s not falsifiable? Welcome to 1984. Orwell would be proud of the doublethink exhibited here.
(Note: That last statement was for rhetorical flourish only. Lest my Darwinist detractors try to glom onto some irrelevant point to try and discredit me, I’m fully aware that Orwell’s novel was decrying this type of behavior, and he would not actually be proud.)