Replies

"Logic may be the starting point that a scientist uses for an idea, but the basis of science is testing."

And the scientific method consists of applyig logical inferences to the results of those tests. It is an essental element of the construct - the two cannot be separated. Baseball consists of pitching a ball and swinging a bat at a ball but unless you combine the two you don't have baseball. Science consists of logical concepts applied to observable data and if you attempt to separate the two you don't have science.

Interesting you say that "the fact that a red ball is a red ball is measurabale". But the redness is merely a result of certain bandwiths of light bouncing off the ball and refracting through the lens of the eye. If someone has a irregular lens (what we call color blindness in humans and normal in other animals) the ball may appear gray. And for him it is a gray ball. Thus, the "color" of the ball is purely a function of the entity percieving it and really isn't subject to an absolute, objective measurement.

Methodological naturalism is the point of divergence with reference to the darwinist, materialist. First Principles are, and have always been the tools employed by the logician. The materialist (physicalist), if they are honest must only adhere to that which is physical. They must, if honest, deny the existence of mind, consciousness, logic, reason, and rational thought, love, hate, or any universal abstract entity (that which does not extend into space) or provide evidence that those things are made of atoms, subatomic particles, bisons, or something physical. OR they must deny the existence of such.

So, as I have enjoyed reading your conversations with the others on this thread, you must admit that they must deny mind, logic (some actually have done this), rational thought, and even their own consciousness. As yet they adher only to their a priori commitment to a rather thick view of physicalism, which has long ago fallen on the asheap of inexcusable dishonesty regarging science.

Keep up the good work.

There is nothing wrong with the lens of people who have color blindness - the lens enables the eye to focus. It is the photosensitive “cones” at the back of the eye that detect color that they have a problem with.

You say ID explains EVERYTHING - I reply that anything that purports to explain everything, in fact, explains nothing.

I described to you the supposed “gap” that God left in reality that HE, according to ID and their ideas on biology (what is under discussion here, not geology, astronomy, physics, etc), has to fill.

That is why ID is a “god of the gaps” argument.

It proposes a weak and shoddy god who left gaping holes in reality.

Proposing a natural force to explain natural phenomena is science.

Proposing a supernatural force to explain natural phenomena is not and never will be science.

Proposing natural forces to explain natural phenomena is testable and replicable and has led to all the technological and scientific advancements of the last few centuries.

Proposing supernatural forces to explain natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads nowhere and creates nothing of any value.