The creationists are not all as simple as those shown above. Below is an excerpt from a discussion with an Intelligent Design proponent (ID is the new and improved Creationism).
quote:
"In fact, intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin's Black Box I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can't be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum
under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum - or any equally complex system - was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven. "
However, you must recognize that in historical sciences where experiments are "inappropriate" as discussed by Ernst Mayr, the only way to "test" an historical hypothesis [what caused a particular event to occur] is to postulate multiple competing hypotheses and then seek to rule out all but the hypothesis to be tested via the evidence. This is essentially Dembski's
method of design detection. It requires the ruling out of natural causes for the patterns. If they can not be ruled out by the evidence, then a design inference is not warranted. This is not the case with the evolutionary hypothesis, becuase it does not seek to rule out the only competing hypothesis - design theory. Regardless of all the excuses for not considering the evidence, in the final analysis, it remains untested by experiment and by a sucessful ruling out of the only competing hypothesis.]
-----------------------------
Still bogus but it takes longer to wade through the argument.
