Replies

Since this is a logical exercise, then any falsifiability or testability arguments either for or against ID must be waived, since it must be conceded that both sides have problems in this regard.

Many discoveries have been made since 1859 that could have made evolution and common descent an untenable theory. Among them are at least 50 independent methods of determining the age of objects; millions of fossils, any of which found embedded in the wrong strata would pose serious problems, ERVs, which have been entirely consistent with common descent; thirty years or more of laboratory research searching for "forward looking" mutations, or mutations that respond to need.

To the best of my knowledge, the only explicit testable proposal put forward in support of ID is Behe's "limit" of adaptive change requiring two mutations before either is beneficial. He appears not to have searched the literature before making this proposal.

The problem here, is that you are offering an apples and oranges argument. Evolution is not the issue in discussion here. ID is.

My challenge was to those holding to either side to logically validate their positions. Attempting to discredit ID by presenting an argument for and in behalf of evolution is a strawman. In order for that argument to be logically valid, then you have to assume that your premise, evolution and ID are polar opposites, is true. Any such assumptions, themselves, must be supported logically. That is the name of the game.

So your task, if you believe that proving ID automatically disproves evolution is to show how, logically, believing in one automatically generates disbelief in the other. Then you have to show how evolution is logically valid and ID is logically invalid.

Since I believe that you are doomed to be foresworn in trying to logically prove your premise, would it not be better to concede that point? That way, you are relieved of the responsibility of logically validating your premise and evolution and are only left with the problem of logically invalidating ID.

Granted, that logic alone does not actually prove or disprove a position. But a proven position should be able to be logically defended. Otherwise, the position is not valid or not very well understood.