In a very brief post on Uncommon Descent (Let’s say Darwin was necessary for the holocaust) Dave Scott revealed the fundamental problem that intelligent design (ID) has in its approach to science.
“Let’s say that Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor for the holocaust.
Now class, what science journal should we try to publish this in? Anyone? Anyone?”
Well, class, can you see the fallacy here?
Scott starts with an assertion (“let’s say”) and then thinks that this is worthy of acceptance and publication in a science journal – without any evidence! He will the go on to call “foul” when his submission is rejected and claim that it is due to “intolerance,” “dogmatism” and “Darwinism” in the “science establishment.” He will then demand that the whole approach of science is changed so that such submissions become acceptable.
This is completely in line with arguments by the Wedge people that science based on inference alone (e.g. irreducible complexity) without the need for evidence and testing is acceptable.