Replies

"Now, I have not admitted anything like this. Oh, no."

Well, not explicity no. You never will. It will come down to parsing planck particles, however.

"Whether you believe in intelligent design or not is none of my business. But, if it can't be observed or tested, it's not scientific."

And using those same criteria, neither are the evolutionary steps that believe, unless you define them in terms that are consistent with ID.

It's a vicious circle and most naturalists cannot understand it.

Thank you for acknowledging that I have never explicitly stated that “ID is just as ‘scientific’ as evolution.” I add that I have also never implicitly stated that. You are correct when you say that I never will. ID is not science.

When you said “those same criteria,” in context I will assume you are referring to observation and testing. If this is so, then you are mistaken when you write that neither are the evolutionary steps [scientific].

Let us first address observation.

Why is it that before the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom, most tree moths had lighter colors? The trees weren’t covered in soot. Darker colored tree moths were more readily spotted by birds and thus their numbers were minimal. After the revolution, though, soot began to make its way to the forests, and consequently the trees became darker. The situation was reversed. Now, lighter colored tree moths were more visible to birds, and their numbers dwindled. Natural selection initially favored lighter colored tree moths, but when the environment changed, natural selection began to favor darker colored tree months. Observation – something that intelligent design can not do.

Now, let us talk about testing.

When Dr. Alexander Fleming first discovered penicillin, it was so potent as an antibiotic that it was dubbed a “miracle.” But, as the decades went on, it started becoming less and less effective. We can continue to test antibiotic resistance in the lab. Take two samples of bacteria and apply an antibiotic to one but not the other (which becomes the control). The antibiotic should destroy the first population of bacteria but still leave some surviving strains. Let these multiply. Then, apply the antibiotic to both populations. The second population should be affected more so than the first. Testing – again, something that intelligent design can not do.

I hate how certain American liberals like to play word games when they defend affirmative action as not being discrimination. Likewise, I hate how certain American conservatives like to play the exact same word games when they claim that intelligent design is scientific.