I could not have said it better

Denyse O'Leary wrote:

Tiktaalik, an early fossil fish with sturdy forefins, helps illustrate the difference between the approach of scientists who are convinced Darwinists and that of scientists who view the problems of evolution primarily in terms of information theory (intelligent design).

Indeed, the scientist provides testable predictions and hypotheses while the information theoretician is complaining at the lack of details while failing to explain how Intelligent Design explains the evolution of fish.

Of course, the gap approach by ID proponents was predicted by PZ Myers

So what has ID done for science when it comes to understanding Tiktaalik and other fossils? Nothing, and the fantastic reality is that when scientists come up with scientific hypotheses, ID remains fully irrelevant and unable to contribute its scientific hypotheses or provide the necessary probabilistic calculations which are necessary to ‘infer design’.

This was indeed an unexpected Christmas present from O’Leary.