On Monday, November 30, 2009, Occidental College paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero and I teamed up against Intelligent Design (ID) proponents Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg. The topic was suppose to be on the origins of life and whether evolutionary theory or intelligent design best explained it. Then it evolved to just: “Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?”, and finally, five minutes before the start, it changed again to “Has Neo-Darwinism Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?”
Why the word games? Because ID creationists have no science, no theory, and no research program. The only thing they can do is attack evolutionary theory and hope people don’t notice that they are employing the fallacy of false alternatives: If A is wrong then B must be right. If evolutionary theory is wrong then intelligent design must be right. Wrong. In order to displace a prevailing theory or paradigm in science it is not enough to merely point out what it cannot explain; you have to offer a new theory that explains more data, and do so in a testable way. In their public debates IDers never define intelligence or design, and if they can help it they never tell anyone who they think the designer is, even though everyone in the room already knows that they think it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham.
[Read more at HuffPost]