I will amplify one of your points and then clue you in about the lack of argumentative ground rules here on ~Explorations.

Naturalism (or macro-evolution, or whatever) is “proved” by “evidence” when “evidence” is defined entirely by presuming naturalism before the question is even asked.

You’re right in that the naturalistic predicate is presumptive with respect to the naturalistic (ie. ‘hard’,) sciences.

This is why I have long wondered why a discipline such as ID is in any way concerned with a science that does not include its own supernaturalistic predicate. Really, you’d have to explain to me why the ID researchers don’t spend all their time erecting supernaturalism into a worthy research regime while bolting it into a foundational philosophy of supernatural research.

It seems they could do so, and then, over time, they could create curricula about this discipline and make appeals to every level of education for the inclusion of supernaturalism, the subject.

With respect to this kind of project, your criticism of the naturalistic predicate could be reconfigured to serve as the predicate and premises for supernaturalism, the discipline. Both disciplines could work their different angles. I don’t know what methodology of falsification and verification the supernaturalist might deploy, yet even this would be a worthwhile aim of inquiry.

I’ll also add that it doesn’t matter if every scientist in the world agrees with that definition of “evidence”.

As far as science goes, the definition of evidence, as well as how evidentiary observations and procedures are operationalized, gets argued over all the time. The key lies elsewhere: in the replication of experiments. Evidence that works only once won’t be saved by a new, better definition.

As far as your patronizing advice and concern for my embarrassment goes, you assume motives that aren’t in play here. Also, I nowhere stated that ID should be banned from rational inquiry. Where it constitutes rational inquiry, ID is firmly so, albeit with respect to biology, ID isn’t doing, (as it were, biology,) so there its rationality is suspect within those naturalistic impositions given as predicate.

To say it again: ID seems on the cusp of inventing a new post-scientific discipline, and I wish it godspeed in doing so. …the sooner the better.

As for transitional fossils, my point was that you can’t be bothered–it would seem–to answer your own question.

Interesting. For someone who is apparently a complete idiot writing a piece not worth anyone’s attention, I apparently warranted quite
a bit of your precious time!

I don’t intend to spark a massive post-for-post debate; I don’t have time and I presume you don’t either. Still, I would offer a few
(honestly) friendly responses:

First, I would like to point out that I think you’re tasking me with quite a bit for a 1000 word op-ed: I’m supposed provide final answers to all possible side issues that could emerge from the huge topics we’re discussing (asking a “how” questions but not providing any answers, particularly regarding fossils)? My purpose in this piece wasn’t to solve the mysteries of the universe or to provide a complete and utter rejoinder to every Neo-Darwinian argument. I simply intended to raise a few questions about one specific theme in the debate. To fault me for not fixing the world in a soundbite is simply wrongheaded and a fine example of creating a straw man.

Secondly, you actually provided a good example of the double-standard on evidence I mentioned: Your own presumptions (which I must point out are not fully and completely explained, discussed, and defended explicitly in text, in your piece—but I’ll give you a bye on that one) have led you to declare potential “evidence” (i.e. Behe and others) worthless primarily because you’ve conveniently presumed a definition of evidence that predestines most reasonably conceivable evidence critical of Darwinism to be “worthless.” It is a definition of evidence that precludes much of the every evidence and argumentation you would likely allow in favor of naturalism and Darwinism. My point wasn’t that Darwinism or naturalism should be banned from rational inquiry—as you imply for ID—only that the same standards be applied equally, and Darwinism open itself to real criticism that results in more than bland variations on a theme.

What you’ve done is mainly rehash the same old word game: Naturalism (or macro-evolution, or whatever) is “proved” by “evidence” when “evidence” is defined entirely by presuming naturalism before the question is even asked. As such, I really don’t want it “both ways.” What I want is a real open mind.

Anticipating a rejoinder, I’ll also add that it doesn’t matter if every scientist in the world agrees with that definition of “evidence”. There was a time when every intelligent person in the world agreed that Galileo was wrong. Argument ad verecundiam never makes a thing necessarily so.

Finally, I would suggest that in future discussion, you try to avoid the argument ad hominem. Your obvious references of disdain for creationists or the institution where I work should really be more embarrassing to you in the eyes of a balanced reader. As you wrongly claimed regarding my arguments, attacking me or my personal beliefs (of which you presume much and know nothing) is little more than a method of diverting attention away from issues, like those mentioned above, that you might find harder to answer.

Anyway, have a good day.

Best,
Brian Melton

You do land on the prime ontological directive: a phenomena arises and can be experienced, and so it earns its account; per William James. Perhaps were there demonstrably no designer, nonetheless, a designer would be invented.

Curiously, if we run with an Oversoul capacious enough to move molecules and smaller parts, we’d note that this oversoul spent 99% of the earth’s history messing around with unreflective life, given that reflective life is around 100-200,000 years old, and something like 13,000,000,000+ planetary years were unfolded previously.