Tim Daneliuk writes:


Also, a fine point. It is a logical rathole to attempt to prove a
negative, I agree. But that's not what the IDers are saying. Rather,
they are claiming that they can show a concrete lack of sufficiency in
materialist epistemology. That's not at all the same as trying to prove
a negative. It is an "adequacy" argument, at least as I understand it so
far.

And you know what - this type of argument is frankly bull****. Suppose an IDer
says there is a lack of adequacy for a certain evolutionary step.

Now suppose that enough evidence is found to proof there is adequacy.

Well, the IDer will just point to another "flaw"

and the cycle will repeat forever. IDers will always claim that they
found a flaw that can't be explained, and pick a new flaw as soon as
the last one is no longer considered debatable.

The exact same thing happens when occultists and scientists examine
psychic phenomina, UFO's etc. As soon as a scientist proves one
example was faked they just pick a new example, and it never ends.

ID is NOT a model. It attempts to explain LACK of evidence.
It can never be tested.
It can never be disproved.



--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.