At 07:20 PM 12/6/96 EST, Jim wrote:
>Steve Clark writes:
>
><< In the absence of a good alternative, evolution remains the hypothesis that
>is tested whether it is right or wrong. >>
>
>This is the game, isn't it? If you get to be the one who defines what is a
>"good alternative," you can leave evolution as the ONLY hypothesis, "whether
>it is right or wrong." [!]
>
>This is what theistic realism shakes its head at. It is, at heart, the sort of
>metaphysical leap you appear to eschew. I've not seen a better example of the
>sort of bias Johnson writes about in "Reason in the Balance" than the above
>statement. Where does it say the definition of what is real and what can be
>considered comes out of Madison, WI? Where have you found the tablets which
>say reality can only be defined in materialist terms? (That would leave you to
>wonder who wrote the tablets, but of course that question cannot be asked.
>There is always a naturalistic hypothesis--e.g., the blowing of the winds, the
>tap dancing of beetles--which one can test, whether it is right or wrong.)
[Big sigh] Back to the rhetoric and the caricature.
If you disagree with my point that design does not provide mechanistic
hypothesis on which to design experiments, then please explain why rather
than resort to this ad hominem crap. Put your thoughts on the line rather
than take the lazy way out by arguing against a caricature you have
constructed.
I'm not going to debate my ideas with you as long as you keep this up.
However, I will be happy to give tit-for-tat on your level of debate, and to
do it publicly.
>
>JB <<How long, Glenn? Until the data reaches a conclusory peak. That's how
>science works>>
>
>SC <<This is not correct. Science works by testing hypotheses.>>
JB
>Wow, this is the first time I've heard it argued that testing hypotheses
>yields no data!
Given the utter lack of connection between what I actually said and the way
that you repackaged it, I can only conclude that you must have been on O.J's
defense team.
Steve