Replies

You got it backwards. I asked you to give a logical explanation. Not only do you *not* do this, you also continue to break the rules by using argumentum ad-hominum. You also refuse to give a logical validation of your premises.

Again, you are assuming that Darwinism is science and ID is not. These are premises for which you have yet to give logical support for.

If you wish to continue play this game, please do so by the rules (which I thought you agreed to when you indicated that my challenge was "Fair enough").

Since it now appears that you are a three exclamation point evolutionist, I would suggest that you either have to logically prove the fallacy of ID or accept the fact that your's is merely a religious belief. Of course, you could concede the point and admit ID has validity. Yeah, and it could snow here in the valley in the next five minutes too - but I doubt it. If you are not a three exclamation pointer, then you still need to show your points by, at the very least, induction.

It is off topic a bit, but I did not actually state that Darwinism is a religion, though it certainly could be. Or, to put it another way a faith-based belief.

I have to admit though, that this response of yours, though disappointing, is not entirely unexpected. First you agree to logically show ID is a bunch of bunk. Then when you will not (or cannot), you change the rules of the game and say that it up to me to show whether or not ID is scientifically valid.

Sorry, but that is a cop-out and is not intellectually honest. First, this is a logical exercise as I've indicated time and again. Second, you were supposed to be able to defend yourself logically.

Instead, you hide behind a sophism. This is not about whether or not I can or even desire to defend ID.

If you can't or don't know how to develop a logical construct to support your position, just admit it. That would be, at the very least, honest. Such an admission wouldn't be to your discredit either. Such a logical answer is not easy to come up with, by either side. I seriously doubt that many people could. Certainly not Dawkins who seems to be more interested in shutting down debate than answering uncomfortable questions.

To be taken seriously, you need to come up with a logical explanation as the linchpin of your argument. This especially important since evolutionism uses many hypotheses regularly which haven't met the tests that you postulate are needed for the acceptance of ID (e.g. Open and Closed Darwinian paths). BTW, I merely used the Darwinian paths to make my point about common use of constructs within evolution which are neither falsifiable nor testable. I did not do it as a critique on the tools themselves. That is beside beside the point since we are doing a logical only analysis.

I certainly haven’t read all of Coyoteman’s posts, but the many posts I *have* read all seem to boil down to the same few points:

1. The scientific consensus favors Darwinian evolution.

2. ID is creationism disguised as science.

3. Proponents of ID have no scientific evidence to back their position.

He repeatedly asserts these claims — as if the more he asserts them the truer they must be.

Assertion 1 is probably true, but it certainly does not prove that Darwinian evolution is absolute truth. Science is not “democratic.” I think Coyoteman knows that, but he seems to forget it quite often.

Assertion 2 is irrelevant. Coyoteman constantly brings up the so-called “wedge document,” written by a member of the Discovery Institute, as though this document has any scientific significance whatsoever. It does not, and Coyoteman displays his fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method every time he brings it up.

What Coyoteman and other “evolutionists” fail to understand is the fundamental concept of burden of proof in science. As you suggest, the burden of proof is not on ID advocates to “prove” that ID is real. The burden of proof is on Darwinian evolutionists to “prove” or provide evidence that ID is not real. Until they do that, ID remains the only reasonable explanation for life.

They have done no such thing. To give but one simple example, honest scientists admit that we do not even understand how a person adds “3 + 4” in their head. So how far are we from understanding how Euler performed his mathematical magic — not to mention Shakespeare or any other genius you can think of.

But evolutionists ignore all that and delude themselves into thinking that we understand so much that only a few “gaps” remain in our knowledge. Hence, the concept of “God of the gaps.” What a delusional concept that is! It’s like calling all the open space on planet Earth the “gaps” between man-made buildings!

In any case, I applaud you for trying to nail Coyoteman down to actual logic, but I warn you that you are wasting your time. He will continue with his assertions, and your attempt to bring logic into the discussion will sail a mile over his head just as it does with so many other evolutionists.