I’m more concerned with the blatant hypocrisy of demanding infinite detail for evolutionary histories from science while making zero similar demands from the ID-Creationist camp.
And if there were no ID-Creationist camp you’d still be more concerned with something other than the lack of evidence for the evolutionist creation stories.
It seems like a fair criticism. Does the ID crowd, for instance, demand granular, step-wise examples of how specific functions or species evolved while at the same time giving their own theories a pass when it comes to evidence?
1 Like
It does seem like a fair criticism. My point is that it’s a red herring. And a logical fallacy.
ETA: Appeal to Hypocrisy
1 Like
Hahaha, well that’s a fair criticism. 
1 Like
That question can be answered by providing the most detailed, step-wise account one can find from the ID crowd of how the flagellum was “designed” and created.
3 Likes
No fallacy here. Just ID-Creationist hypocrisy in demanding infinite detail from evolutionary theory while providing doodle-squat from their own. One more example of how the position of ID-Creationism isn’t known for its intellectual honesty.
1 Like
AMEN. evidence is everything in science. if evidence is lacking then a conclusion should not have the prestige of being called a scientific conclusion or a THEORY.
origins is a complicated thing. I think biological origins is the most complex thing we know in the physical universe. Physics is chump change in comparison.
so figuring out conclusions about origins should be help to scientific scrutiny.
I think for everybody we are faced with just having hypothesis . however well done or accurate, they fail to be testable or repeatable.
Evidence quality is a problem.
YEC starts from Gods witness but the others don’t.
This was even more made apparent to me in a case about a evolutionist accusing another evolutionist of doing psudoscience because of different conclusion on theropod/bird relationships.
Everyone can say evidence is very speculative in these matters.
We really should cut slack for everyone.
They are NOT dumb, ignoring evidence, non scientific, etc etc.
Just humans trying to figure out past and gone processes and actions.
Origin subjects come close to being history subjects. not very sciency.
God’s witness includes the testimony that his creation gives about him – scripture says so. The truth that comes from the reality of scripture cannot ultimately conflict with the truth that comes from the reality of his creation.
2 Likes
Here is the usual conversation:
Convo A
ID supporter: IC systems can’t evolve.
Evolutionist: Where did you show that?
ID: You can’t show us the step by step evolutionary pathway, so you can’t prove me wrong.
E: You just shifted the burden of proof.
Convo B
ID supporter: I can’t accept evolution because scientists can’t list the step by step evolution of Feature A in Species A.
Evolutionist: I agree, we don’t know how every one of the the billions of features found in biology evolved in excruciating detail. Every theory is lacking in some detail, but that is never a reason to reject a theory. So do you accept ID?
ID: Yes.
E: Can you give us the step by step details of how this same feature was designed?
ID: Umm . . . just a sec . . . IC SYSTEMS CAN’T EVOLVE!!!
Unfortunately, all too many of these discussions fit into one of these two forms.
3 Likes
So, technically, is it a red herring? (The question that I posed upon which @mung commented)?
Does the ID crowd, for instance, demand granular, step-wise examples of how specific functions or species evolved while at the same time giving their own theories a pass when it comes to evidence?
This is a fundamental feature of arguing the inadequacy of a purported cause, not exactly a double standard; but the critical reply is well-taken. You’re correct in the assertion that such a theoretical situation need not lead to impasse.
1 Like
Amen. I agree.