We often get some variation of “Until ID proposes a ‘mechanism’ for how the design is accomplished, it cannot be taken seriously as an explanation for origins.”
Here is an example from frequent commenter Bob O’H (who, after years of participation on this site should know better):
If ID is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a “how” theory has to exist.
OK, Bob, once more from the top:
Suppose someone printed your post on a piece of paper and handed it to an investigator. We’ll call him Johnny. The object of the investigation is to determine whether the text on the paper was produced by an intelligent agent or a random letter generator.
Johnny, using standard design detection techniques, concludes that the text exhibits CSI at greater than 500 bits, and reaches the screamingly obvious conclusion that it was designed and not the product of a random letter generator.
“Ha!” the skeptic says. “Johnny did not propose a mechanism by which someone designed the text. Therefore his design inference is invalid. If his design inference is correct, then the design has to have happened somehow, so a ‘how’ theory has to exist.”
Bob, is the objection to Johnny’s conclusion valid?