Biased accounts of intelligent design

Intelligent Design is also pointless, useless and significant only as a source of humor. If we look at the actual products it might be possible to make a case for Inept Design, Inelegant Design, Inefficient Design, Insane Design but certainly not Intelligent Design.Which is why humans have had to redesign and rework the original designs of everything from Bananas and wheat and corn and tomatoes and potatoes and cattle and chickens even humans themselves to try to fix the really piss poor designs.

But that is simply not what scientists do as has been explained to you a brazillion times.Science asks what could have caused something and then looks at the evidence, develops a hypothesis and the tests the hypothesis. Mendel did not just make up a string of natural processes, he did the tests and recorded the results and published the results and then others tested his explanation and when they all got the same results, a theory was presented.That is what the Intelligent Design Snake Oil Salesmen never do.

Yet what science claims is testable and has been tested.There has never been any evidence to support design or the existence of any designer.

The point is, Intelligent Design has absolutely no support while the standard explanation is fully and completely supported. Intelligent Design is simply fantasy while evolution is supported by reality.

Yes Faith, we know that you think that.Yet once again, reality shows you are wrong.Science has tested evidence and ID has only fantasy.

Faith, you know that is simply yet another example of you denying the facts and reality. If ID has anything more than fantasy please present the evidence and the means to test it.Edited by jar, : applinf spallin

What happens if a mutation actually makes a critter better able to live in its environment?

What you think is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a mutation can be determined by examining the DNA. Whether or not it helps can be checked by seeing if the critter has an advantage.So the question remains; "What happens if a mutation actually makes a critter better able to live in its environment?"

What you are not sure of is irrelevant, particularly since you have never shown any sign that you even know what a mutation is. Okay, so you agree that would make the critter better able to exist in its environment.Now what happens in that critter breeds and the mutation is passed to the next generation?

Yet there is no evidence of any "Intelligent Cause" and lots of evidence of an undirected process such as natural selection. But ID is fun to laugh over. The possibility of an Inept Designer or Incompetent Designer or Ignorant Designer or Inelegant Designer is certainly supported by all the evidence.