In the first part of my two part blog post addressing Casey Luskin’s assertion of the existence of facts that support intelligent design(ID), I analyzed Luskin’s overview of the framework for ID. In that post, I concluded that the very ideas that intelligent design are grounded on are completely arbitrary and baseless. In my second part, I was hoping to analyze real data that ID proponents bring forth when arguing for ID. Unfortunately, I did not find anything that resembles a scientific argument from Luskin.
The purpose of Luskin’s post was as a response to students seeking to “find a fact” that supports ID. However, Luskin does not give any “facts” He gives generalities and provides post hoc explanations. Phrases like “ID explains why” and “ID encourages” are in places where facts should have been. References are included, but he never states one solid fact that came from these studies.
Facts would have been something like this:
- The fossils of Tiktaalik show bone structures that are a hybrid of water living and land living animals. They were found in a geological place and time that corresponds to a time shortly before fossils of land animals can be found.
- Genes between closely related species have a high degree of homology. Less related species have less homology.
How hard would it have been to provide equivalent facts? Not very, provided there are real facts to back up intelligent design. Since Luskin never provided any real information, I am not going to devote any more time to Luskin’s “facts.”