On UcD BarryA writes
But science does not work that way. Scientific conclusions rarely run along a continuum. They are discrete functions. Yes/No True/False In other words, there can be no compromise between truth and error because there is no middle ground between them. Therefore, pleas for “compromise” in the ID/NDE debate don’t make sense to me.
Since there are no scientific conclusions, or contributions from ID, it seems that NDE has won by default. Of course, the challenger was overheard bragging how it would defeat NDE in the weeks leading up to the ‘match’ but when it came to actually defending ID, it decided to withdraw. Sounds like ID to me.
What has ID done for science lately?
Father of ID Phillip Johnson agrees that ID has failed so far
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.