I appreciate Anthony’s response regarding ID. But if there are mechanisms that we don’t have all the answers for yet, why accept the Darwinian hypothesis that life forms evolved from random mutation and natural selection? Why is that more acceptable than saying it might have been intelligence? Or perhaps just saying that Darwin has no answers to many things at present, so skepticism about his theories is entirely justified, or at least justified. Also, Darwinians accept falsifiability only on their own terms. It would seem that if there are some things that today seem irreducibly complex and can’t be explained by random variation and natural selection, and the answer of the Darwinians is that we don’t know yet what might emerge to explain them, that too is an example of non-falsifiability. There is an open-ended possibility that some explanation will turn up. You can say that about almost anything. Also, I might have thought the Cambrian Explosion, with many species appearing fully formed in the fossil record, might have put a dent in Darwin.
And what about the probability models that show a trillion to one that something evolved by chance? Why isn’t that science, acceptable to be taught as a possible qualification to Darwinian theory of chance? For example, ribosome, the molecule that constructs DNA and is needed for biological systems to multiply. The time needed for that molecule to develop by random processes can be calculated, since it can be made in the laboratory, and would be a trillion times the age of the known universe.