pz

Because you are under the erroneous impression that false choices and simplistic reasoning are permitted in physics but not biology?

Principia

Don't kid yourself. The argument from physics is no better. One only has to read the excerpts I pulled out to see that it too is largely based on negative evidence and flawed conclusions. BTW, there is a reason why there are 2 separate forums on IIDB -- one called E/C and the called Science. Which one do you think an argument from physics is better located?

E_muse

I agree, and I've raised it with Xeluan above.

However, Bubba posted asking for any real evidence for ID and that he would consider any rational and falsifiable evidence (see above). Whilst he hasn't constrained the arguement to biology it appears that he decided to post here. Only he can really answer that for you. However, at least Bubba can re-engage in the debate that he was wishing to have and knows where to look.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

I haven't suggested once that I agree with it. I have merely presented something in response to Bubba's request as I was held partly responsible for the previous thread collapsing and wanted to do something about it. I usually try to keep an open mind on such matters.

Clutch

What on Earth could Koons (a completely unillustrious philosopher, and for obvious reason) mean by calling the MUI "ad hoc"? It is one interpretation of the equations independently thought to describe the inflationary process. And though Koons is either ignorant of this or dishonest, the fact is that the MUI predicts certain values for certain constants, values that have been more closely approximated by recent measurements. In short, it is based on pre-existing physical theory and is empirically testable.

Whereas "Jesus wiggled his nose" is neither...

And the big picture is that yet again E_muse is offering the transparent fallacy of false dichotomy. On the other thread, before you fled, I asked you to explain "the specific research programme, crucial tests, lines of experimentation, and points of consilience with other theories and disciplines" that characterize your purported ID explanation. This, after all, has been the specific point of three threads in rapid succession. But the silence is deafening.

pz

Hold on -- Koon's argument is not based on physics. It is philosophical fol-de-rol. It doesn't belong in the science forum, either.

Principia

Even more telling was that E_muse offered to define specifically which variant of ID he is defending -- after telling both Bubba and me that specifically advocating a positive stance was beneficial. And this is what he comes up with?

Principia

Good point, pz. It is, as Superbrains would be quick to point out, cosmology -- a metaphysical argument.

pz

You still don't get it. You are not presenting evidence yet. Armchair philosophizing, like that indulged in by Koons, is not evidence. How clueless can you get?

RufusAtticus

E_muse,

Do you know of any biological data, published in the mass of scientific literature, that supports a rigourously defined concept of "intellegent design" over the more familiar and established concept of evolution via mutation plus selection, drift, migration, etc.?