[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

[Dimensio]

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

How would this "fact" taint the results? Be specific.

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.

Again, you fail to demonstrate your assertions. You merely make the same blanket assertion sans evidence.

[b_sharp]

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

"Darwinism has to stand totally in a separate domain from that if ID"

You have done two things here that are logically suspect.

You are conflating the tools and processes used in science to simplify experimentation with the formalized attempt to identify potentially intelligently created phenomena. Just because ID can use the same techniques as other science does not mean that the techniques are ID.

You attempt to create a syllogism using the above false premise.

[jennyp]

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

The fact that scientists' tools & experiments are all intelligently designed by necessity doesn't create any bias per se. But what's ironic is, if ID-based tools would taint scientists' results in the manner you assert, they should taint them toward ID, not away from it!

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.

No, it would challenge the premise of any experiment about any natural phenomena.

I say that snowflakes are natural, undirected phenomena. I point to the details of chemistry & physics, and the results of X-ray crystallography and other high-tech tools of chemistry & physics to show why an ID explanation isn't necessary to explain why all snowflakes follow the same general pattern.

But by your logic, as soon as I use technology to examine what really happens when snowflakes form, that means that snowflakes must be constructed by hand by angels!