Replies

Also explain, if you are using ID toolsets, how you go about removing the ID bias inherent in such toolsets?

What "ID bias"? What are you going on about? It might help if you clarified your terms.

Nothing you've stated in the past has been able to show why Darwinists (concerning ID) use arguments such as the following:

since A = B and B = C, it is obvious that C <> D.

Example of such an argument being used? Or are you, once again, going to assert that it is being used without bothering to provide any evidence to support your claims?

"The fossil record shows a change in flora and fauna over time." (A)
"Changes in life forms over great periods of time is indicative of natural selection in response to environmental pressures." (B)
"Natural selection is a basic tenet of evolution." (C)
"Therefore, ID has no place in evolution." (D)

Nice example. Now if you can show someone actually claiming that premises A, B and C lead to conclusion D you might have an argument. Until then you're doing nothing but ranting about a strawman. I have never heard anyone state that ID has no place in science because of observations about the world. The only rationale I have heard for ID not being science is the fact that it fails to meet criteria required for scientific theory; specifically, it is not testable, makes no useful predictions and has no hypothetical falsification criteria.

Again, I have seen you assert that those who say that ID is not science have used the arguments as you claim, but when I see you make that assertion I make sure to ask you for an example of exactly that happening. Thus far you've done nothing but claim that it happens without showing a shred of evidence that it is the case.

If you have an example of someone arguing that ID is not science because of the premises that you labelled A, B and C then by all means give me a reference. Do not, however, ask me to justify a case of faulty reasoning that you have yet to demonstrate has ever actually occured. It is incredibly dishonest of you to make that argument.

ID bias. Your tools are all ID based. How do you ensure that this fact doesn't taint your results?

No shred of evidence? Anytime that someone starts with a basic premise that ID should automatically be discounted, then the result very much reflects the conclusions.

When I show the logical paradox of Darwinism and ID, Darwinist who understands it at all pretty much attacks it as faulty logic without addressing the paradox itself. Commonly, the charge is that such a paradox disproves all science, when, in actuality it merely challenges the original premise of the Darwinist.

I've tend to argue about ID and Darwinism from *only* a logical perspective. This is because of the problems that you discuss with falsifiability and testability. With logical reasoning, OTOH, falsifiability and testability don't necessarily apply. Deductive and inductive reasoning do.

I don't know why it is so hard for many Darwinists to understand this. I've made no secret of it. In fact, I stress it again and again. I realize that logical reasoning, alone, is not the be all and end all of scientific method. But it is a part of it and a rather significant part at that.

So once again, I will riddle you the conundrum. Please answer from only the logical point of view. Either show where my logical reasoning is faulty or admit that you can't.

Since the general meme of Darwinists seems to be that Darwinism stands on its own and needs no ID, in fact rejects ID, then Darwinists have to make their logical point totally outside of the ID domain. Darwinism has to stand totally in a separate domain from that if ID. More especially since Darwinists tend to assume that Darwinism is empirical and ID is not.