Of Baramins and Baloney 22

Don

Thanks, but this reply is

1) not an explanation for the Cambrian explosion, which is what I have specifically asked for, twice

and

2) merely a negative argument against another explanation (”It isn’t even theoretically conceivable.”), not a positive argument for design.

Going back to our first exchange, and throughout all of our exchanges, I think I have consistently told you that if you want ID/creationism to be considered as a scientific explanation, you (or someone) must be able to provide predictive hypotheses based on an ID/creationism framework, and positive arguments, not just the old negative arguments that science can’t currently explain X or Y or Z.

To date, you haven’t done either of those things. Why not? I submit that it is impossible. Supernatural causation is consistent with any and all observations, and thus obliviates any chance of making a specific predictive hypothesis. I’d be happy to be wrong about this, but it is up to you to make that case before this scientist, or any scientist, climbs back on a wagon whose wheels seemingly fell off about 100 years ago.

Nothing new here, so science moves on without you.

regards

Mark

- - - - -

Mark,
I would like to comment on your objections, but first I must ask for your help in understanding what you are looking for. Please give me an example of a testable hypothesis that predicts advances in organism complexity based on random mutation plus natural selection. I will note carefully how it meets the parameters you have explained for me.
Don Mc

This entry was posted on March 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm and is filed under Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.