> But I do not need to put forward my own theory of how the
> Bombardier Beetle arose. It is perfectly in order for me to criticise a
> scientific theory without putting forward my own theory
But Steve's critique still needs to be scientifically valid. As such, it
must have a theoretical basis, and many times this theoretical basis is an
alternative explanation for the phenomenon under discussion. What we want to
to know is, what is the theoretical basis for Steve's critique of the claim
that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of the bombardier beetle?
However, having a theoretical basis is not enough. To be scientifically
valid Steve's critique must also be testable:
"If based on theoretical grounds only, critiques do little more than alert to
possible weaknesses in the model, or merely place doubt on the model. To
prove that a model is faulty, or to show that an alternative model is more
valid, the theoretical basis of the critique must itself be tested and
verified by experiment or be observation." Duane L. Rohlfing (1974)
"Evolution of Models for Evolution" in K Dose, SW Fox, GA Deborin and TE
Pavlovskaya, eds., The Origins of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, Plenum
Publishing, New York. Rohlfing is a scientist, not a lawyer, so unlike
Macbeth's analysis, Rohlfing's is specific for science and scientific debate.
So what we also want to know is, what evidence can Steve give us to show that
the theoretical basis of his critique has been tested and has been found to
be valid? If he cannot produce any such evidence, can he tell us how he
would test the theoretical basis of his critique?
Alternatively, let him explain why it is reasonable, as well as
scientifically valid, for him and other ID theorists to critique Darwinism,
but it is unreasonable, as well as pseudoscientific, for any evolutionist to
critique his or anyone else's ID theories?
Kevin L. O'Brien