Replies

"Let's turn this on it's head. If "Occam's razor demands that ID be discarded until such time it makes a testable claim", then, given the existence of ADM and its extensive use of recombinant DNA technology to create new/modified lifeforms (Frankenfood to Europeans), then, ID must be correct (pointing to ADM as the "intelligent designer")."

Um, no. How many times does it have to be said that the existence of ID among humans is in no way evidence for a designer that created the universe and guided the formation and then evolution of life? Apparently, not enough.

"That's why you don't want to use that particular argument ~ it's of value if and only if we have a static Universe."

It's of no value because it is logically fallacious.

"Since we have a constantly changing Universe, which may even have variations in the speed of light over time (and all the other kinds of changes you might have with that sort of thing depending on when you live in the Universe), we really do need to stick with arguments that accommodate change."

In other words, we can't know anything and any truth claim has equal validity? Sorry, post-modernism is not for me.
Your example also has nothing to do with whether there was a designer who created the universe and life.

"This suggests, BTW, that Occam's razor is a fundamentally flawed doctrine and should, itself, be discarded."

Or, it suggests you have made a logically fallacious argument.

Einstein repeatedly claimed that God does not "play dice" with the universe.

More recently, we have observed that God does "play dice" with the universe, and throws them where even He can't see them.

It's not static, and we can only know an approximation of what happens over long periods of time by observing what's going on now, but even that has a large degree of uncertainty.

Gnosticism assumed we could "know", with certainty, everything ~ particularly God's will (or even the will of the gods).

Being a Christian and not a Gnostic means rejecting gnosticism.

Now, back to Occam ~ the argument was made that Occam's Razor demands that ID be rejected because, obviously, it's simply an extraneous, added component to an otherwise simpler system.

All that's needed to knock down that argument is to find a single Intelligent Designer who has managed to create only one marginally different lifeform.

ADM qualifies as the Intelligent Designer.

They aren't the only one either, but they exist and do that stuff.

So, cranking that into your dichotomy forces us to believe that ID is correct, or that Occam is wrong.

No doubt you didn't anticipate Occam being at stake in the debate or you wouldn't have done that, but you really have to keep in mind that in an everchanging Universe, with recombinant DNA technology being used and under further development, we cannot fail to INCLUDE the existence of at least one ID in the pot.