"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Esquilax]

Do they have answers? Yes. But not ones I find very satisfying :-)

I don't think, though, that people must always have answers to contribute. That would seem to be a science-stopper to me, as frequently the precursor to the great scientific paradigm shifts is the building voice of problems with the current paradigm. It's OK in science to simply raise an objection. Of course we remember those who then find solutions, and that is right and proper I think. But I don't understand those who think science can't or shouldn't engage with objectors. I think science itself, and public knowledge generally, thrives from science being actively engaged in the wider market place of ideas.

You're not getting the point. Objections are fine, and should be raised if the objector thinks they have a legitimate case. It's the way we grow, by addressing the perceived flaws in our position.

The problem with the way ID proponents conduct themselves is that their entire position is built upon objections to the alternative view... and nothing else. There is no evidence for intelligent design, no hypotheses with predictive capabilities, and no falsification. Just objections to evolution. You can see it in the way the bigger name ID proponents argue their case, and even in what I see as their strongest argument, irreducible complexity: what actually is the position of irreducible complexity? "I can't see how evolution could have produced this, and therefore it must have been designed." That's literally it. Whenever an organism is said to be irreducibly complex, the person making that claim has no positive evidence that this is so, they just have a lapse in imagination when considering possible evolutionary pathways for that organism. The entire field is based upon negative evidence aimed at evolution.

Objections are no big deal. Hell, the entire process of peer review (something that ID seems desperate to avoid at every turn, by the way) is based around ferreting out objections before a piece of work even enters the public eye. But ID proponents take objections to be proof of their position, which is way out of line. For a real scientist, an objection is something to be studied and answered. For an ID proponent, an objection is something to be exaggerated and marketed, turned into a hyperbolic piece of merchandise to be cranked out absent peer review and fact checking without a care for evidence.

Objections are one thing. Sitting on those objections, rejoicing in the fact that something you're "against" has a hole in it, actively working to prevent that hole from being filled with knowledge because the argument from ignorance you can make out of it can be turned into a weapon for your ideological agenda, is quite another.