Of Baramins and Baloney 20


This is going nowhere. I can’t keep you on track.

Predictions made by individuals who happened to be creationists (particularly those who lived before Darwin!) are not the same thing as predictions based on ID/Creationist principles. Particularly IF the results of the prediction are NOT in conflict with results predicted from evolutionary models. Finally, Hugh Ross is not a biologist. I’m not about to delve into areas where I have no expertise. In fact, I think that’s good advice for anyone. It is a tad disingenuous to drag in cosmology and astrophysics and probability and information theory and then complain when I refer you to online refutations by experts in those fields.

So I’ll ask again.
Re the Cambrian “explosion”, please tell me* one testable scientific hypothesis*, derived from whatever “design” paradigm you prefer, that would lead to *an outcome unique to your position*. By that I mean that the experiment, if it supports the hypothesis, would generate new observations that are explained by the framework of your paradigm, but cannot be explained within the framework of evolutionary theory.
I submit that the problem with supernatural causation is that any observation can be reconciled with it. Since any observation can be reconciled with it, it is incapable of making testable predictions. Prove me wrong in the context of this biological question, which is one that you originally brought up.

I look forward to your reply.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.