Granville Sewall poses a simple yet telling question to Darwinists:
In any debate on Intelligent Design, there is a question I have long wished to see posed to ID opponents: "If we DID discover some biological feature that was irreducibly complex, to your satisfication and to the satisfaction of all reasonable observers, would that justify the design inference?" (Of course, I believe we have found thousands of such features, but never mind that.)
If the answer is yes, we just haven't found any such thing yet, then all the constantly-repeated philosophical arguments that "ID is not science" immediately fall. If the answer is no, then at least the lay observer will be able to understand what is going on here, that Darwinism is not grounded on empirical evidence but a philosophy.
The "ID is not science" arguments would fall because if the answer is yes then there is a test to which ID can be put and have the theory confirmed. At the same time such a find would falsify the Darwinian view that only physical processes are at work in producing biological structures.
If the Darwinist answers no then he is acknowledging that no amount of evidence would ever count against his theory. If that's the case then the theory is simply not subject to being falsified and is a metaphysical, rather than a scientific, hypothesis.
I'm sure that were this question posed to the critics of ID they'd try to duck it somehow rather than answer it forthrightly. They'd pretty much have to.
RLC
