Replies

I see that charge laid *FAR* more often than it actually applies.

Just play a little logic game for one moment please, and describe to me, from a logical perspective, Darwinism standing on its own without ID support.

Since Darwinism (in this exercise), as a logical construct, has to exist on its own, only tools and observations outside the domain of ID are allowable. This is because, at the current time (as Darwinists have a habit of telling me), ID is neither testable nor falsifiable (though that may change in the near future).

It follows, therefore, that the only way to insure no ID impurities taint the Darwinist experiments and observations, all ID tools must be excluded.

If Darwinism cannot stay within the logical outlines (as mentioned above) and still supports the notion that ID is wrong, then we are leaving the realm of logical reasoning and entering the non-empirical kingdom of religious reasoning.

It follows, therefore, that the only way to insure no ID impurities taint the Darwinist experiments and observations, all ID tools must be excluded.
If Darwinism cannot stay within the logical outlines (as mentioned above) and still supports the notion that ID is wrong, then we are leaving the realm of logical reasoning and entering the non-empirical kingdom of religious reasoning.

Congratulations, you've just destroyed the logical underpinnings of all science!

Every experiment that has ever been conducted by anything involves some "intelligent design" to be able to artificially hold some parts of the phenomenon under study constant, while other parts are free to act as they would in nature. This is why all scientists do experiments in the first place.

The alternative would be simple observation of the phenomenon as it occurs in nature. But most interesting natural phenomena are too complicated to fully understand without holding some things constant and examining only one or two parts at once.

Are you really willing to destroy all of science to keep your dogma alive?

Just play a little logic game for one moment please,

I'd be glad to, but your following ramble is far from the realm of actual logic.

and describe to me, from a logical perspective, Darwinism standing on its own without ID support. Since Darwinism (in this exercise), as a logical construct, has to exist on its own,

No it doesn't.

only tools and observations outside the domain of ID are allowable.

Wrong.

This is because, at the current time (as Darwinists have a habit of telling me), ID is neither testable nor falsifiable (though that may change in the near future).

A specific enough ID hypothesis would be testable, but the problem is that ID proponents never want to be pinned down that far -- for obvious reasons. ID *as* the ID proponents try to put it forth is indeed non-testable.

It follows, therefore, that the only way to insure no ID impurities taint the Darwinist experiments and observations, all ID tools must be excluded.

Complete twaddle. Try to actually understand a topic before you blather about it.

If Darwinism cannot stay within the logical outlines (as mentioned above)

Your meandering is hardly "logical".

and still supports the notion that ID is wrong,

The point is not that ID is "wrong". Try to remain coherent.

The application of intelligence in the analysis of evolution -- or any other field of knowledge -- is in no way "tainted" by the unrelated observation that the notion of "ID" as put forth by the IDers is so poorly developed that it's an untestable hypothesis. Nor does that observation somehow make the application of intelligent analysis into any sort of "religion", as you goofily claim next:

then we are leaving the realm of logical reasoning and entering the non-empirical kingdom of religious reasoning.

Yeah, sure. Now run off and play with your other ID friends. Leave the science to people who actually understand something about epistemology.