Funny, I thought evolutionists already had a model. Oh well, no matter.
On this subject, Ross writes:
The public debate about teaching intelligent design has exposed widespread confusion both inside and outside the church about how the scientific enterprise operates. One of the most frequent complaints scientists make about the Intelligent Design movement is that their brand of intelligent design is not testable, falsifiable, or predictive. This brand lacks these features, scientists explain, because there is no model explaining the nature of the intelligent design. The problem with these complaints is that the general public has little comprehension of what really makes up a scientific model or why it is so important for a model to be testable, falsifiable, and predictive.He is quite correct that most people have little idea how science works and even less of an idea why some sets of knowledge they learn in school are so well understood while others are not. It is also notable that he did not defend the ID perspective, likely because he also knows it is unfalsifiable.
Then the wheels fall of the wagon:
Scientists will retain a failed model, however, if there is no superior model to take its place. This is why it’s typically fruitless for Christians to point out all the flaws and failures in the evolutionists’ explanation for the origin and history of life. Most evolutionists are already aware of the shortcomings in their model. Nevertheless, they will not abandon the model until they first see a superior model to take its place.BANG! BANG! BANG! I'm sorry. I was just banging my head against the desk. I'm back now. How could someone so thoughtful and well-read be so misinformed about evolution? What are the shortcomings of the model? As a hermeneutic, there are few theories with better explanatory power. How did Neil Shubin know to look for the fishapod in Devonian shallow sea deposits? How do you explain the fact that he actually found exactly what he expected to find? How do researchers like Ross (who is a progressive creationist) explain the fact that over 90% of the species in the world's history have gone extinct? Isn't that wasteful? Why would God create, in successive order, descendent species with minor changes, some to run concurrently with their predecessor, until summarily removing one of them from the landscape? Why would he do this time and time again? To be sure, the questions raised above have the ring of "argument from personal incredulity" except that we have a working model to explain these things—and it is a very good working model. Theodosius Dobzhansky was right: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution." Ross' response is disappointing.