Darwin's Failures Support Intelligent Design

Responding to “How far has ID come in the last five years?”, locally famous commenter markf responds,

Every single one of those headlines is about “Darwinism” and “Darwinists” (whoever they are – their most important common characteristic appears to be they are government funded which rules me out).

Looking at the detail on the posts the only positive achievement I can see for ID is the controversial Dembski and Marks paper. All the rest is about perceived failures of this Darwinism.

Which is an excellent demonstration of missing the point. Failures of Darwinism are not merely a negative. They are a positive. The growing number of stress points at which Darwinism fails can, taken together, form a picture, one that points to general laws that govern how high levels of information are produced in life forms.

Obviously, as with dpi, the more such points, the clearer the picture. We can’t have too many of them, though eventually, there will be enough to work productively with.
Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution is an instance of this approach. The upper limit on the change toward greater functional complexity that can be produced by Darwinism is telling us something.

Read the rest of "The last five years: Darwin’s failures are positive sources of information for ID" here.