Unintelligent design (recurrent laryngeal nerve)

One word - Prediction.I have never yet seen an IDist or creationist make any sort of falsifiable prediction that is a logical consequence of their theory.That is how science progresses. That is how competing scientific theories are evaluated and filtered.The theory of evolution can point to a multiplicity of verified and verifiable predictions.ID - unless you can show otherwise - is an exercise in post-hoc interpretation in such a way that any theory flexible enough can remain technically unfalsified.The predictions of ToE need to be compared and contrasted with those of whatever alternative is being proposed and ultimately that is the only scientifically demonstrable method of evaluating theories.No?

And how does that distinguish your theory from the ToE prediction regarding this same phenomenon?What we are looking for is predictive means of distinguishing the competing validity of two theories - Yes?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly.A scientific prediction should lead to the discovery of new evidence relevant to understanding the question at hand.

Has ID ever made a prediction that has been verified?

Only if "we will discover it one day" and "I can explain the predicted and verified results of the competing theory" are taken on some sort of faith. Two competing theories -One makes predictions that have been verified and which have led to the discovery of new evidence that itself has led to new falsifiable predictions which has again led to new evidence etc. etc. The scientific method of progress in action.The other theory leads to no verified predictions and simply states that "one day" it''s predictions will be borne out whilst still claiming that it is a valid theory because all of the predicted results of the theory it is competing with can be explained by means of post-hoc interpretation.I say no contest. But which do you consider superior?

Let's put it another way.Has ID theory ever resulted in a discovery?You can blather on about predicting unknown evidence all you want but the crunch point of a scientific theory is essentially discovery (by means of prediction) - That is the yardstick.If ID has never ever led to a single discovery then on what basis can it possibly be advocated scientifically?Has an ID "scientist" ever discovered anything? Ever?

So not a single ID/creationist discovery then.Do you think evolutionary theory is equally devoid of discovery?Or do you just think that discovery isn't a particularly important measure of the worth of a scientific theory?