On 3/13/2012 8:15 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I certainly get you point here, but I think it's a strength of a
> philosophy of science if you can permit things like ID as theories of a
> sort and let them fail on their own terms, rather than just defining
> them as inadmissible.
However, its not being called "inadmissible", but rather, "contrary to 
existing evidence, which already falsifies what few predictions it 
bothers to make." Its their side claiming that its being rejected out of 
hand, without proper review. But, its been reviewed. By itself it 
doesn't predict anything useful, and its "sub-predictions", which have 
been claimed that they could show it to be possible, all contradict 
existing facts, even to the point where when they are not trying to find 
some new "irreducibly complex" thing to harp on, they are claiming that 
the last one they tried wasn't shown to be reducible already.

Post a reply to this message