Replies

Er, where in the fossil record do you find evidence against ID? Note that I'm pointing out a paradox. It seems that anti-IDers want their cake and eat it too. You love your ID tools, but use the results to try to disprove ID. Sorry, but if a finite intelligence can come up with tools, there is no way that we can logically assume that an infinite intelligence cannot use the same.

The strawman that is often thrown up by anti-IDers is that since ID is unprovable, then it should be ignored or tossed out. This reminds me, in many ways, of the Paris medical academy's answer to the Pope when he was searching for ways to end the Bubonic Plague during the middle ages. They pretty much said that the answer was unknowable and probably had to do with a bad alignment of Jupiter.

So, if you wish to throw ID out of the equation, please stop using ID tools, since logically that is a no-go. All else is little more than hypocrisy.

So, if you wish to throw ID out of the equation, please stop using ID tools, since logically that is a no-go. All else is little more than hypocrisy.

If you want to use the word "logically" correctly, then your premise has to be in some way linked to your conclusion. Just chucking the word into your statements at random doesn't make your non-logical arguments logical.

You haven't demonstrated that it is illogical for human beings to use the results of tools intelligently designed by human beings to disprove the idea that biological diversity on earth is intelligently designed. So far your "logical" argument is just a non-sequitur.

Er, where in the fossil record do you find evidence against ID?

To the extent that ID borrows the creationist mantra that there are no transitional forms (and Meyer, Wells, and Johnson for at least three out of the six "ID scientists" anyone can name will do just that), the fossil record disagrees strongly.

Now, ID has various second lines of defense when the falsity of "No transitional forms" is pointed out. The last trench is "ID can explain that, too."

Yes, God or "The Designer" can have left things looking just like that, too. But evolution actually predicted that certain kinds of transitional forms, the very kinds we keep finding, must once have existed. ID-ers mostly sit around mocking, "Where is the missing link?" and then retreat to "ID can explain that without invoking evolution" when yet another one turns up.

Note that I'm pointing out a paradox. It seems that anti-IDers want their cake and eat it too. You love your ID tools, but use the results to try to disprove ID.

Science is fond of experiment, yes. This is not a gift from the discipline of ID to the rest of science. This is just science systematically investigating nature.

The only real paradox is the dumb Catch-22 game I pointed out to you in my previous post and which your post does not address except to express puzzlement over references to evidence for evolution.

That reminds me of another salient feature of ID. On every thread, the same ID scientists show up with amnesia for all previous threads and need to be reminded of the existence of evidence against what they think. Their failure to remember the existence of any evidence for evolution, or to correctly understand what evolution even is, is somehow evidence that they are correct and mainstream science is wrong.