I actually find a lot of merit in RBH's MDT, but I also think it has some problems. The one thing I really appreciate about it is RBH's commitment to formulating his theory around empirical evidence, following the evidence where it leads. Of course, prominent ID proponents have also made that commitment. While the focus of ID is on design detection, RBH broaches the subject of the designer(s). I myself have an interest in this but not so much as a support for ID but rather as form of natural theology. Of course once one ventures off into this territory the speculation begins and inferences are made. Since RBH incorporates metaphysics into his inferences, they must be open to a full philosophical critique. This is particularly where MDT may be found lacking.

The primary premise of MDT is that multiple designers make more sense than a single designer. This leads to the first metaphysical foundation the RBH seems to be employing. From all indications it appears to be a reaction to a classic theism where a single designer is perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent. From that paradigm one might expect a certain type of design pattern based on those attributes.

From here.

By definition, perfect designers would be identical to one another, and their designs would be indistinguishable.

and

C. Failures and imperfections of design: That the multiple designers are not perfect implies that their designs will vary in (at least) efficiency, quality, and longevity, and the evidence strongly supports design imperfections.

If, as it appears, MDT is only based on a critique of an ID stemming from classic theism, that critique may have merit but such a narrow focus renders it impotent against other prominent ontologies, in particular forms of panentheism.

Of particular note is the philosophical problem with MDT of infinite regress. It lacks a first cause, an uncaused cause. If multiple designers are causes then they must also logically be effects. In other words who designed the multiple designers? Philosophy and theology solved this problem by positing an uncaused cause, Aristotle's prime mover. That logic led to the eventual disenchantment with polytheism. More recently, although he did not initially plan to, Whitehead found that a concept of God was essential to his process philosophy. To be philosophically sound MDT would have to address this issue of infinite regress. It would seem that even if there were multiple designers, God would be necessary as a unifying principal, an uncaused cause. If that is the case then we're really back to God acting through secondary causes, albeit intelligent ones.

More to the point, however, is that the empirical observations upon which RBH bases his inference to multiple designers, already fit perfectly well within the well established philosophy and theology of panentheism. It is a theology that is finding more and more appeal both within religious traditions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) as well as modern movements like process thought, open theism, and my approach, the Divine Life Communion.

First of all panentheism rejects the notion that God is unembodied. One of the favorite metaphors of panentheism is that "the world is God's body". The metaphor I employ to illustrate this ontology is "Author/Story".

Secondly, the issues of design variance are understood within the concept of kenosis, self-limitation. It means that God accepts the varying design constraints within both inert and living systems and acts in a self-limited way. This also answers the charge of "bad or faulty" designs. As a design engineer I have found myself in situations where I was asked to design things when, in that context, I had limited knowledge and skill to do so. In those cases one does the best one can.

The point is that the same observations that have led RBH to opt for MDT can just as easily fit into single designer frameworks, which do not have the philosophical problems that MDT has. Having said that I would welcome the research the RBH suggests for designer discrimination. However, unless that research could make a strong case against single designer frameworks such as panentheism, it will fail to convince because of its metaphysical and philosophical problems.

"(Dr. Michael) Behe is one of the few scientists in ID who has published real scientific research (though no ID-based research) and he happens to be a biochemist. Were he an anatomist I don't doubt that the focus of mainstream ID would still be on morphological structures, as it was 200 years ago for Paley."

Surely RBH is not discounting peoples' focus on shapes and structures! This quote reveals RBH's belief that (post)-modern ID theories are a "recrudescence of Payleyist Argument from Design" However, it makes as much sense to call IDT's today "˜Paleyan' as it does to call evolution theories today "˜Darwinian.' The theoretical predecessors and forerunners of "˜evolution' and "˜design' are undoubtedly referenced in the contemporary versions of "˜evolution' and "˜design' theories. But that doesn't limit the current versions of ID and EVO to the views of those particular theorists. This has been said already by many people and it is no use faulting Behe for seeing weaknesses or unexplainable things in evolutionary, especially neo-Darwinian theory.

Dr. Behe is not (an) Evangelical Protestant, he is (a) Roman Catholic, though that doesn't seem to affect his ability to conduct good experiments, write papers and to coin (a) scientific vocabulary (IC) that points to definitive problems in neo-Darwinian evolutionary accounts of origins and processes in micro-biology. The record does read that he nonetheless participates in an evangelical political-cultural, mainly-Christian movement in the US that has become known under a broad guise as "˜ID.' RBH is against all of this and even against non-theists who would like SD-ID without his MDT.

"It may even be possible to make empirically-based inferences about the intentions of the several designers: the telos of individual unembodied designers may be empirically accessible to us." "“ RBH

Well then, good wishes to RBH for his continuing research on "˜empirically-based inferences about the intentions of"¦unembodied designers!' In such a case, everybody involved wins and "˜teleology,' re-implied in the intentions of the designing (agent), is admitted into the scientific picture where it was previously or recently absent. A teleological dimension had been disallowed in the wake of Darwinian and Spencerian dys-teleological evolution, which became absolutized in the disciplinary forms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary models. RBH's possibility seems to play right into the IDM's agenda and would appear to contradict any notions of parading materialism, naturalism or scientific neutrality.

"[T]o be blunt, I am not interested in the theological implications of MDT nor in solving "˜theological difficulties.' "¦ polytheistic traditions that pre-date monotheism "¦MDT is an attempt to find some empirical scientific content in the ID conjecture. Theology is way down on the list of concerns that inform that attempt." "“ RBH

The fact that RBH puts theology "˜way down on his list of concerns' displays an alienation from contemporary needs, trends and concerns. Spirituality (as opposed to mere empiricism) is welcome in today's new epoch of discovery and religious re-invigoration, ask the Dalai Lama or the Pope. Science and religion, regardless of what RBH claims, are ultimately not enemies, but rather potentially cooperative partners in global discussions and practical research toward understanding and enabling greater human flourishing.

It appears that MDT, though posed as a kind of alternative "“ if sometimes a compliment "“ to evolution and ID, has nothing much relevant to contribute in humanitarian arenas dealing with meaning and purpose. If MDT does try to become philosophically coherent it would likely be through applying some kind of methodological individualism. Likewise, this would make the "˜designer' of a theory responsible for contextualizing his or her relationship with the discourse in which they are writing/communicating before pretending to foist a "˜scientifically neutral' and objective theory on people which is anything but neutral or objective.

"Since (judging from its invisible scientific publication record) the mainstream ID movement has apparently been unable to generate its own research program, it seemed inappropriate to merely criticize it for that lack"¦MDT subsumes mainstream ID and provides an actual research program." "“ RBH

The research program of the IDM is indeed either non-existent or apparently kept secret, probably even to some of the people inside of the IDM's big tent pseudo-synthesis! But so is RBH's theory about MD's, since we are expected to wait for it. Why the IDM doesn't wish to solve some of its current theoretical/political quagmire by involving the social sciences and humanities, as RBH at least tries to do with MDT, is somewhat strange to this author. However, on the other hand, why RBH would wish to reduce the value of philosophy/theology in connection with his scientific investigation is also hard to fathom.

Perhaps RBH's MDT offers a much-needed solution or perhaps it doesn't. But at least it should provoke pause for reflection upon some of the problems inherent in ID theory and in evolution for today's scientists, scholars and philosophers to consider.

"The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing." - Archilochus

"[M]ultiple designers are imperfect in the sense that they do not produce ideally optimized designs" "¦ "A significant part of the research program underpinned by MDT will be teasing out the differences in designs that are diagnostic of different designers." "¦ "MDT hypothesizes a finite and limited number of intelligent agents." "“ RBH

Though he goes into more theoretical detail about "˜agents' than many IDists have done, RBH's theory will have the same difficulty as IDT in pointing to "˜designer(s)' if he doesn't distinguish his subjectivity (self-reflection) from his supposed scientific knowledge of design-reflecting a designing agent. With MDT, RBH appears to be caught in a hermeneutic circle that does not allow enough distance between the object under study and the "˜scientist' (or philosopher/theologian) who undertakes the study. A double hermeneutic appears to be inevitable, even for the natural scientist.

Instead, RBH levels weaker criticism at his own theory than he does at SD-ID theory RBH seems to realize that if there are a "˜finite and limited number of intelligent agents,' then he will somewhere down the way potentially arguing against an infinite, unlimited Intelligent Creator as the case of mainstream IDt's often protests. Notice that he has written about a "˜research program' that "˜will be,' and which we should supposedly wait for. We can perhaps also assume that the final formulation and actualization of such a program is not yet complete. MDT is thus still in a process-of-formation, that is, it is still evolving, not yet having arrived at its destiny as a credible theory, rather than a parody.

"Multiple Designers Theory does not rest on thin air or (what is equivalent) purely philosophical speculation." "“ RBH

There is no need to equate philosophers' work with thin-air thinking when RBH's MDT clearly includes its own philosophical speculation. RBH underplays philosophy in his bid to appear scientific, a tactic often taken by IDists who abide to the "˜scientific revolution' tack. Especially obvious are those who will not concede that perspectives opposing their ID theory should be given respective space and fairly considered. Personal views of science, philosophy and theology are clearly being forced upon others in the names of each other, by people on all sides of this debate. This situation is also visible in RBH's MDT.

What can be expected of RBH's MDT version of empirical pragmatism is that it should help uncover the burden of pressure on evolutionism and potential alternatives to it. Only in doing so, he also implies that MDT is nearly as universalistic, or perhaps even more universally applicable (read: accurate) than ID theories. "˜All things are designed by evolutionar(il)y intelligent agents' would be quite a universal statement.

Following his attacks on SD-ID, RBH moves into what may be one of the strongest aspects of MDT, it's insistence on recognizing the human-ness of typical theories of design (i.e. not the specific theory called "˜intelligent design' promoted by the IDM). RBH notes that "one of the classes of designers is: human." Who could disagree with him that humans do sometimes "˜design' things? This move shows how important the field of anthropology will be in RBH's MDT and how different this approach is from ID's which is predominantly in biology and genetics.

Following this approach, he uses the terms "˜human-designed,' "˜human designers' and "˜teams of designers.' The IDM apparently does not agree (yet) with such language. As such, they appear unable to distinguish between human "˜designers' making human "˜designs' and un-embodied designers who may or may not be designing (or have designed) biological information. There is no theory currently in the IDM according to SD-ID that includes human designers or that has elaborated upon (the role of) anthropological theory, which would help guard against the anthropocentrism of design. RBH's MDT is not shy and is unashamed in trying to fill this gap in ID.

The charge of anthropomorphism against MDT also seems legitimate. RBH even resorts on occasion (later in the paper) to speak of (a) "˜human creator,' (but he doesn't capitalize it like Ayn R. did) perhaps revealing his generational inclinations to the older evolution vs. creation debate. After all, RBH was raised, as far as we may gather, in mainstream American thought where "˜evolution vs. creation' was elevated into a national spectacle or exposition, in show trials, school board hearings and even in the words of US Presidents (e.g. R. Reagan felt both creation and evolution should be taught, W. Clinton is almost pure evolutionist). Trying to untangle oneself from evolutionism, even in an effort to (non-biologically) identify multiple designers of life, is not a simple task.

"Like human designers, the unembodied designers of MDT are constrained by the media with which they must work." "“ RBH

Here is a place where RBH and I are in almost complete agreement. "˜Media' are important for this conversation and there are or must be constraints. The time and place, method and mode of designing or evolution(s) all involve media or they would be simply media-less. Physical, mental, emotional, material or immaterial media all deserve a place in our conversation.

"By definition, an unembodied intelligent designer must intervene in what would otherwise have been an undesigned biological structure or process in order to impose a design on it. There are indications that those interventions occur intermittently as discrete events in time rather than either continuously or only once at the beginning of things." "“ RBH

RBH's MDT is also concerned with "˜interventions' and how to measure them; this may be news to those anti-IDists who don't often consider philosophy of history with a systematic approach. There must be intervention(s) somewhere or one probably lives in an "˜iron cage of rationality' in the absence of mystery and imagination. It is not quite clear, however, whether front-loading interventions in the universe by a Single designer or curious-interventionist agnostic deism is what RBH is really endorsing. Perhaps the thought of a "˜continuing creation' in which he himself is involved and thus responsible for his personal actions is deemed undesirable. Either way, an MDT view surely need not challenge the faith of IDists that there is more to the origin(s) of bio-physical things than merely the skin of substance. On the weaker side, RBH's MDT does nothing to counter the mainstream ID view that the origin of the universe is more than "˜merely' a material or physical event and that it does consist in a singularity.

(Part II of III)

I beleive you said it was a two-parter. Did you condense the two or do you have another one? I'm just asking so I can post the whole thing.

thanks for the heads-up. Yeah, this thread is getting crowded, probably too much so for such a semi-review that I wrote some time back about RBH's MDT. But I'll submit it here (the first part to start) and you can put it where you like. It seems that RBH has visited TT's before, so perhaps he would be willing to visit a 'roped off' thread about his theory.

Arago

~~

Critique of MDT by RBH (prime detractor of IDT's)

Why would RBH be a prime detractor of intelligent design (ID) or in particular, of the brand of ID theory that infers a Single designer? Is it purely politics or is there an actual theoretical foundation on which he is building? We can try to discover this by reviewing RBH's Multiple designers theory (MDT) with a brief analysis.

It is not appropriate to critique or even comment directly about ID theories. Instead, what has been called Multiple Designer's Theory (MDT) by e-poster RBH (Richard B. Hoppe), a Panda's Thumb Member is on the e-chopping block. All quotes are taken from RBH's MDT paper which can be found on-line where Mike Gene referenced it above in this thread.

"[A] revolutionary change in the conception of ID is necessary to rouse it from its empirical and theoretical slumber" "“ RBH

Let it be agreed between RBH and I and some others who visit here, that, after more than 10 years have passed to address and clarify its theoretical foundations, ID (c. 1993) needs to be changed in crucial ways if it is to have anywhere near the success its originators have said it will or should have in natural sciences. We are thus testing the futurism of the ID crew. An adapted, neo-ID theory (which may even be neo-evolutionary somehow) would look very different than ID does now. An actual "˜revolution' in ID would be required for it to gain legitimacy as a "˜science' and not only as it is now already considered (and accepted loosely by some TE's and EC's), as a philosophy of science and/or religion.

Here is one admission from RBH's paper about evolution:

"There are no scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory available to be taught" … "alternatives to evolution should be taught," … "alternatives to evolution to be taught" … "teaching alternative theories" … "to teach alternatives to evolution." "“ RBH

An alternative to evolution, are we hearing this right??

First, in regard to evolutionary theory RBH doesn't disagree, in principle, with the "˜teach the controversy' idea of the ID movement. If there is a controversy, teach different sides if priority demands it. He appears instead to disagree that any alternative to evolution is currently available (or even perhaps that one can be found). RBH however, emphasizes that ID is not a suitable alternative to evolution. Therefore what alternatives to evolution in RBH's competent spheres of knowledge are we given to consider?

RBH's fields of wonder apparently include disciplines such as psychology, cultural anthropology, social philosophy, political science and ethics, where evolution theories are taught and studied, by professionals and by amateurs. RBH is likely more qualified than most IDists to speak in these areas about evolution and what challenge or lack of challenge exists from it's usage in theory. Such multidisciplinarity must be taken into consideration when analyzing and critiquing RBH's MD theory.

Evolutionary theory in natural sciences, as RBH realizes, is only part of the evolutionary story. Non-natural sciences offer yet another arena in which to investigate and/or explore evolution; scholars in these areas should not be declined attention to draw upon their reflections, tools and observations about evolutionary theory, though IDists rarely speak about them. IDists often come from engineering, computing or biotech research backgrounds and interests and they prefer going into philosophies of biology, ecology, information theory and self-organization, than giving much attention to the role of evolution in non-natural sciences. Likely RBH knows this, realizes some of the shortcomings in ID knowledge and wishes to exploit them as weaknesses of the IDM. His MDT views serve up such a situation.

"[M]ore technical and formal works in ID habitually refer to "˜designer,' not "˜designers,' "˜agent,' not "˜agents,' and "˜agency,' not "˜agencies.'" … "The singular intelligent designer is a powerful default for mainstream ID proponents." - RBH

The facts do obviously go in RBH's favour about the IDM's focus on a Single designer (or Designer), which IDists in the IDM often won't address when speaking publicly. The "˜don't talk about the designer' aspect of ID is quite exasperating for those scientists who like to make analyses that include the designer(s), builder(s), or constructor(s) of physical and non-physical action and events in the world. It may not be necessary, but it helps the case of ID sufficiently if IDists can speak in areas other than mathematics, statistics, engineering, information theory, jurisprudence and philosophies of science, particularly biology. Theologies which lead to the conclusion of a Single designer are what mainstream ID generally restricts itself categorically to and this cannot be conveniently removed from consideration of the ID paradigm.

MDT, says RBH, is meant to stimulate thinking and discussion, and to provide a "˜real alternative to evolutionary theory.' He doesn't call his views anti-evolution, though he attacks ID theories exactly when ID proponents suggest their theory as an alternative to evolution. Most IDists, however, are actually evolutionists (in one form or another) anyway. For example, W. Dembski, M. Behe and S. Meyer all accept evolution in micro- form; just not when it turns into a worldview that promotes materialism, secularism or naturalism.

RBH would perhaps prefer to distinguish himself from his ID opponents by saying exactly when his theory presents an alternative to evolutionary theory, that is, when he disagrees with evolution and how MDT fills a need that evolutionary theory hasn't yet or can't. What exactly are some "˜things that don't evolve,' according to RBH?

Whether in parody or genuine self-interest, as far as it depends on ID, MD appears to be almost an entirely reactionary theory. Let's observe this through what RBH says about it:

"Multiple Designers Theory rests on the same philosophical, mathematical, and empirical foundations as mainstream Intelligent Design theory." … "MDT automatically inherits all of the [the] scientific evidence adduced for current ID." … "MDT is an exercise in extending the intelligent Design conjecture." "“ RBH

Since RBH is a loudly proclaimed evolutionist who is infatuated with ID, we see both evolutionary and intelligent design theories being mixed together into MDT. It is somewhat surprising to hear RBH openly admit ID theory has "˜philosophical, mathematical, and empirical foundations', since he has made it one of his missions to discredit ID as pseudo-science and not fit to fulfill its anti-evolutionary overtures. Perhaps he has turned a corner with MDT and now merely wants to extend ID presumably into a more acceptable (post)-modern form rather than opposing it outright. In either case, this admission seems to make it harder for RBH to criticize ID theories which he is somehow allied to fundamentally. When he accepts a "˜legitimate formulation' of ID which can be incorporated it into his MDT, RBH apparently thinks that a "˜legitimately formulated' MDT makes more sense than a Single Designer Theory (SDT).

Finally, Surfguard, you never did explain why you chose to ignore the points I made in the original blog.

Must be because of the irrepressible fear that defines me. (Boy, my mother will be glad to learn this.) Sorry, but I don't like web discussions being led on such a personal level. (There you go, the fear issue again!)

Sad thing. I'd really liked to discuss ID with you.

Bye.

Wow, never thought this could get so ugly so quickly. From just a handful of comments I've contributed to this blog I've been called to be "defined by fear", not a Christian (or, at least, possibly just a self-claimed one) and a censor, if one would let me. Strong stuff, but let's forget that now, assuming that it all just evolved naturally and was not done by design (Sorry for the cheap joke ).

You're talking about this thread. You actually believe ID represents a threat to science and democracy. Yet you cannot make a rational case that convinces me or others why we should likewise feel afraid. You are then left with your fear. This fear defines you in the sense that you probably feel the need to debunk/discredit ID - the reason for your being here. It's the "˜fight-or-flight' response, the body's typical reaction in a state of fear.

Seems to me we're getting to the point: If you don't want to prove ID, fine with me. But not wanting to prove a new theory over an established one wouldn't exactly make it scientific. And I understood that's what ID advocates wanted?

Here you expect to see ID proceed from a speculation to a proven theory all in one giant leap. Any investigation is going to start off an shaky grounds and it takes time and a series of small steps to see it through. You want something that proves ID and disproves evolution because of your fear. If you allow for a less demanding and less extreme state, you are allowing this thing that you fear to flourish. An investigation will be perceived as part of the conspiracy plot to overthrow democracy and replace it with a theocracy.

Well, it could - as creationism, as a religious concept. But it couldn't if it wants to be a scientific theory explaining the same phenomena as evolution.

Wrong. ID can co-exist with evolution in many forms. Evolution can be designed, such that design exploits the evolutionary mechanisms. Evolutionary mechanisms can be designed. The world can contain a mosaic of things that were designed and not designed. You come to the table with black-and-white vision, lumping all of biotic reality into "˜designed' or "˜just happened.'

As a matter of fact, probably well known to this blog, evolutionists predicted that, if the flagellum was indeed the result of an evolutionary process, stand-alone parts of its mechanism should be found in nature with a selective advantage to them. This prediction was made in the 90s when no such stand-alone part was known and the flagellum was ID's prime example of IC. A little later those missing parts were actually found.

The TTSS was not found because of any prediction. People working with this mechanism of disease isolated and sequenced the genes and, at the time, noted the possible evolutionary relationship. They did not declare they found what evolutionary theory was looking for.

Since then, the question is whether the TTSS (the "stand alone part") is more ancient or more recent than bacteria, as the evidence leans toward the latter. Since evolution cannot travel back in time, the TTSS only becomes relevant if it existed prior to or concurrently with the origin of the flagellum. So let's see if your prediction is really all that risky. Are you saying that if the TTSS turned out to originate after the origin of the flagellum, the evolutionary hypothesis would be falsified? Or does your prediction not assign any weight to the failure to find "˜stand alone parts?'

Furthermore, you failed to address my argument. The existence of "˜stand-alone' parts can also be explained by ID. I suggest you familiarize yourself with my hypothesis of front-loaded evolution. Remember, you need to use evolution to predict something that also cannot be explained by ID.

This examples demonstrates that evolution does make predictions even despite the risk that those predictions could fail for reasons not connected to the theory being right or wrong: If the missing link ever existed it might simply have been destroyed or not preserved over the millennia.

The issue of not whether evolution can be used to make predictions. We're applying your standard and demanding you use evolution to predict something ID cannot explain. I'm pointing out that this is not how evolutionary biologists typically make their predictions.
As for the whole issue of predictions, we also need to remember that the use of evolutionary theory has a history of faulty predictions. People tend to forget the failed predictions and recall only the successful ones.

And on the original topic of this post: Why would the (alleged) fact that no ID critic criticized MDT make it true? Even if it was true that MDT wasn't criticized (which I admit I took no effort to check), couldn't it simply be that no-one focussed on it because disproving the single designer theory would be enough to disprove MDT right along? And if MDT was given the "warm welcome" you claim, well, I take pride to be the first one to dismiss it.

Like DocLogic, you misrepresent me. I never said MDT was true nor made true by the lack of criticism. I simply point out that MDT has been proposed as one way to explore ID and no ID critic has raised the identity issue with it. This supports my contention that the identity issue is not a necessary first step in any design inference. There is no need to box yourself into such a narrow-minded approach. But again, this may be where you fear defines you. I also raised the issue of required methods for identifying the designer and noted the political smell of the demand. You side-stepped all that.

Finally, Surfguard, you never did explain why you chose to ignore the points I made in the original blog. How is this supposed to work? You ignore my original points. When I ask you to explain why you ignored my original points, you ignore that request (effectively giving me the middle finger). Now, you want me to believe you are being fair and objective about all this, right? Why should I?

surfguard:
And who keeps you from doing that?

Just about all anti-IDists.

surfguard:
I tried to say this: Evolutionists take the risk of making (distinguishing) predictions. IDists don't. Why?

IC and CSI are distinguishing predictions that ID makes.

First science is not and never has been about proof.

surfguard:
Pardon me?

The Nature of science

"Most scientific thinking, whether done while jogging, in the shower, in a lab, or while excavating a fossil, involves continuous observations, questions, multiple hypotheses, and more observations. It seldom "concludes" and never "proves.""

If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go. Galileo started this little tradition: He proved a prediction right that had been made by Copernicus, thus establishing the heliocentric system over the geocentric.

surfguard:
If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go.

As long as it is a valid prediction, it would help.

surfguard:
predict something that evolution would not be able to explain.

NDE cannot explain the origin of life, IC or CSI.

What we want is to be able to look at something, say "hey this looks designed", and then carry out an investigation in that light. … IOW we want the "luxury" of being able to follow the evidence/ data to where it leads.

And who keeps you from doing that? I certainly don't. I'm here to discuss your concepts with you, if you like to.

surfguard:
Even if no proof of the reducible complexitiy of the flagellum were found until today (which I deny), then the existence of a stand-alone part of the flagellum would at least remain a prediction that evolutionists make.
But the type III sec system isn't a stand-alone part. …

Ahem… For the sake of the argument I actually *did accept* your claim that no proof has been found. And all you do is reiterate that no proof has been found? I'd have expected more from a man who in his next line accuses me of "bad form" for not reading the contents of an article he linked. I mean, can we stop getting personal in every second post?

I tried to say this: Evolutionists take the risk of making (distinguishing) predictions. IDists don't. Why?

First science is not and never has been about proof.

Pardon me? If a theory was not accepted by everybody anway a fulfilled prediction was always the way to go. Galileo started this little tradition: He proved a prediction right that had been made by Copernicus, thus establishing the heliocentric system over the geocentric.

So if ID should be correct you'd at least make it too easy for your opponents by not trying to convince them in a way that they'd be forced to accept: predict something that evolution would not be able to explain.