It never seems to amaze me how shallow some arguments against ID science are. Here’s an example of that and a good frisking of that example.
As Luskin points out:
What Kutschera has done is analogous to a person who opens up a computer and does nothing more than describes how it works. One can study a computer and find that a good one will work without any intelligent oversight as long as it’s plugged into a power source. But that doesn’t mean that the complexity underlying the computer’s operation evolved by a natural process. Such a study may describe how a computer works, but it does not explain how the computer arose in the first place. Thus, Kutschera’s empirical study is worthwhile. But such types of studies do not explain mechanisms of the origins of the first computer—nor of cell walls.
It’s something I’ve noticed myself, that Dawkinsists think that pointing out how something works somehow leads to a falsification of ID – of course, we all know that ID can’t be falsified, except for the times when it has been, right? This does nothing to counter the ID argument, however.