If you cannot effectively counter claims that your arguments and evidenctiary inferences are metaphysical and cannot uniquely support evolution, then you merely prove me correct.
But the 'intellectual relativist' and 'nihilist' charge is cute.
Sounds really cool and I bet the little evos loved it.
"But the 'intellectual relativist' and 'nihilist' charge is cute."
And accurate. You don't understand what abstract thought is, or what metaphysical is, or what science is. You are the poster child for the postmodernist assault on reason.
No. Your right. I can't. I can't because you won't decide between two incommensurable criteria (abstract thought being involved on one hand, versus reference to past unobserved phenomena on the other). Not that it matters because neither criteria works anyway. They both include far too many things that no one considers "metaphysical".
I've already criticized both criteria anyway; and you haven't responded to my criticisms.