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.

-- William Dembski

I just had to share that gem from William Dembski, high priest of the Intelligent Design/Creationist cult.  In this one quote (made by Dembski on a message board) the man painstakingly crafts a torpedo and then shoots Intelligent Design (ID) with it.

Dembski is not stupid.  He knows full well that if it isn't testable, it isn't science--science does not work that way.  And yet here he just flat out says that it won't be tested.  Look at the circular insanity of his logic.  It basically boils down to

If ID is correct, it makes no sense to try and connect the dots.  Therefore we won't try and connect the dots.

To which the obvious response is, if you don't try and connect the dots, how do you know if ID is correct?  "Not a mechanistic theory"... Jesus... it's not a theory at all!  In order for it to be a theory it has to have been tested!

Note also the double standard.  He accepts fundamental discontinuities in ID, because those discontinuities are caught by the God-safety-net.  Oh man, I can't explain how we got from here to there...  ummm... oh I know!  GOD DID IT!  Phew, that was a close one.

But he (like all other Creationists) rejects real science because of discontinuities in the evidence.  This overlooks the fact that no matter how much evidence one amasses there will always be some discontinuities.  It's impossible for us to have a fossil for every species that ever existed, but that doesn't invalidate evolution.  Yet this is exactly what the Creationists demand.  And exactly what they refuse to provide themselves... they're not going to connect the dots for us, because they are operating with the God-training-wheels, and thus their "theory" can never fall down.  From an earlier quote on the same message board:

...Give a sustained argument in your own words of how some [Irreducibly Complex] system of the sort that I or Mike Behe cites came about...

Here Dembski demands an explanation from an opponent of ID--explain how such-and-such evolved.  Why?  If Creationism doesn't have to connect the dots, why should Science? Because that's what Science does.  It actually figures stuff out instead of making stuff up.  But Dembski accuses scientists of the latter.  Despite the fact that there is a towering mountain of evidence to support evolution through natural selection, the moment a scientist can't explain fully how we got from A to B, and says that we've seen enough transitions of the A to B sort to safely say that A evolved to B, Dembski pounces... as if that is somehow evidence for a designer.

It's been said before, and the Creationists still don't get it.  Disproving Evolution is not Proving Intelligent Design.  Will these wackos ever just go away?