That’s what he’s says, but if you read his words carefully he doesn’t even understand the problem well enough to ask the right questions so he can’t possibly come up with the right answers.
He’s fallen for the propaganda that ID is worthwhile if it appears to poke holes in Darwinism. Leaving aside the fact that all those “holes” have been refuted in copious detail, that’s approaching the issue in exactly the wrong way, albeit the way that religious propagandists want.
The correct way to approach this - as any scientific issue - is to ask the first principles. How does ID work? How does it account for the available evidence? What can it tell us to look for that we haven’t yet found?
Note that this does not mention Darwin and evolution at any point.
Real scientists go about the process in exactly this way. There is an example in the current New Scientist in an article on how using an analogy to superfluids can explain the formation of the universe from a black hole singularity. The originators didn’t sit there saying we don’t like inflation, it has these flaws: they built up the physics from scratch to show how it accounted for features we see. Now they’re saying exactly what else they would need to account for to make the hypothesis stronger. That’s science. ID is not, and doesn’t even bother to follow the scientific method.
That’s what I’m saying Adams doesn’t understand. Without that of course every bit of noise is equivalent. But when you look at the issue through normal scientific lenses, “teach the controversy” is reduced to pure noise. There is no controversy. None. One is science, one is not. They are not two sides of anything. As long as scientists play the game of responding to the “holes,” however, the public will not begin to understand this. Adams shows us why.
Absolute utter nonsense. There was a belief, to which all evidence was skimmed, filtered, and skewed. It’s a good analogy, to be sure, but to the other side of what you think it is.