The case against Intelligent Design
Here is an explanation of the argument against Intelligent Design, in case you wondered.
I've always been puzzled as to why the concept that evolution isn't random should be seen as such a threat by open-minded scientists who presumably want to go wherever the evidence leads. The Darwin quote on the first page answers that question. They don't want to go wherever the evidence leads; they are dedicated to blind chance as the mechanism of evolution with every bit as much a priori fervor as the most fervent Creationist is to Genesis 1 as literal history.
Note the rebuttal to Dembski's theory of specified complexity. It is a classic example of what logicians call "begging the question."
Comments
So a few observations: 1) how can they legitimately claim to search for scientific truth when the search is restricted to only one possible conclusion a priori? 2) if a scientific question can be raised that has (only?) two possible answers, how can only one be testable and the other not? 3) Archaeology and forensics are two scientific disciplines that actively seek explanations of data based on recognizing and quantifying the artifacts left by "intelligent designers"--present or not 4) If evolutionist's refuse the analogy of detecting design in artifacts, machines and other man-made objects to detecting it in living organisms...what is their basis for doing so? Can they deny that a designed object has detectable features of being designed?
I agree w/ you Bob... evolutionists are left begging the question quite often, and I only wonder when and if the massive edifice of evolution will crumble.