I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your [Intelligent Design] position as I do for my Darwinian position." [Intelligent Design] is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not [Intelligent Design]'s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If [Intelligent Design] is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with [Irreducibly Complex] systems that is what [Intelligent Design] is discovering.
   more »

Proponents of Intelligent Design speak compellingly in ways that sound convincing to young people, or people who want affirmation for their faith, and they often hijack science by misusing scientific findings to support their crackpot conjectures. The saving grace for scientists and other freethinkers is that the ID-nuts don't know what the heck they are talking about...   more »