Re: The status of ID and a personal reflection

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:43:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

I recognise the effort you here have put into trying to explain your
views but I don't have time to go through all the points and most of
them have been covered before. I'm going to focus in on what you seem
to suggest elsewhere is the key to understanding ID.

[…]

Something that needs to be understood is the inherent asymmetry between
the positions of naturalism and supernaturalism in terms of how each
applies science. Naturalism is seeking to prove a positive, i.e. to
identify at least one plausible naturalistic explanation of origins.
Supernaturalism, in this context, is required to prove a negative, i.e.
on the basis of science demonstrate that all possible naturalistic
explanations are impossible or extremely doubtful.

This is the fundamental fault line in your arguments and those of ID
in general, advocated as the 'last man standing' argument by Stephen
Myer in his book "The God Hypothesis."

You can NOT prove something right by proving other things wrong. If
there are 5 explanations offered for something - - A, B, C, D and E -
even if you could prove A, B, C and D wrong, that alone does not make
E necessarily right. An explanation has to stand on its own merits and
that is where ID falls down, it focuses on trying to prove A, B, C and
D wrong and offers nothing to justify acceptance of E That is why I
and others keep telling you and other IDers that if you want ID to be
taken seriously, you have to offer something about the Who, What,
Where and How. So far you have offered nothing except God spoke things
into existence. A useful starting point might be the two most recent
questions I asked you about microevolution vs macroevolution and the
problem of things like malaria along with weaknesses in the design of
the human body.

[…]