In which Eddie & T_aquaticus discuss ID, TE, and naturalism

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I find it odd that you are scientifically outraged that someone should suggest that the origin of life required design,

I’ve never noticed even a speck of outrage in anything T_aq has written. Are you sure you’re not projecting?

@Eddie

That’s because Venema, etc. are concerned with apologetics. I’m not. I’m concerned only with what seems to be “the best explanation” for a phenomenon – at the moment.

Then given the amount of time you devote to posting here, wouldn’t your concern lead you to take an interest in, say, the “technical side” of genetics, as it is rather important in understanding evolution?

@Eddie

If they say, “I don’t think design inferences belong in science, but I’ve spent my scientific life doing purely technical work, and know nothing about the history or philosophy of science, so don’t go by me,” that would be fine.

What exactly do you mean by “technical” and by “purely technical”? I see contempt conveyed in your use of the terms, but not much else other than a profound misunderstanding about how science is done.

@Eddie

I will talk about the history and epistemology of science, because I have been reading world-class scholarship in those areas for 40 years now.

And we all know that reading is so much more effective than doing, is that it?

@Eddie

No philosopher can rest content with that kind of non-integrated approach to reality.

That sounds like a justification for you integrating some genetics into your approach to evolutionary reality.