For quite some time. Read up on Wittgenstein, Karl Popper, Rudolph Carnap, and (your friend, the atheist positivist) Bertrand Russell if you want to know where that argument went.
It's funny you'd use such a modern argument, the fundamental limits and uncertainty of our perceptive powers, to attack an old idea, and advance a creationist ideology (I know you already denied it's creationism... I disagree, having seen that it is well spun creationism.)
The troubles with ID are that they (you) first claim that idea (of limits to knowledge) as their (your) own to discredit science, then propose to do away with it entirely by attributing anything unknown to the Invisible Diddler. Something you can't verify. Yes, so until we sharpen our vision to the degree that that (one at a time, slowly) question can then be answered fully and completely with a precise and unbroken timeline of events, the IDers will step in to say "here, this gray area here, is where the Invisible Diddler shows his miraculous handiwork." Science has for many years already been agonizing over the problems of proof, and exploiting that to advance what amounts to a whimsical thought experiment is... low.
The trouble with ID is that it proposes to attack one area of science using lack of a theory in quite another one.
There has never been a question regarding evolution that could not be answered with a reasonable scenario, without having to sketch the outlines of an Invisible Diddler.
"The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient" is a red herring. We have a much more sophisticated view (today) of emergent systems and complexity that arise from the physical world than the worldview being attacked by the IDers. It's still not necessary to rely upon an Invisible Diddler*.
Another red herring is that evolution has ever claimed to describe the genesis of life. It doesn't. We haven't learned enough about *the past* yet to be able to *extend* evolution to such an alien landscape. But equating our ignorance of eras long past to "holes in evolution" is... a red herring.
If there is a God/Alien/SpaghettiMonster (and notice I've never said there's not) and I could face him/her/it to ask "was that you they were talking about?" [[s]he|it]'d say no. Then he'd touch me with his noodly appendage, and I'd be enlightened.
That book you posted... haven't read it but I have read Behe, and every thing he said was either a lie or omitted contradictory evidence. There's plenty of material online about his smears and about his failures to admit or remove his omissions from his rhetoric--I'll look for commentary on that book.
*I just made it up and am infatuated with the phrase, so I'm going to enjoy it for awhile...
And because you can't comprehend it, it can't be true, right? 500 years ago, the idea of particle physics might have been incomprehensible to scholars, but that didn't make the principles of particle physics false. IF there is a designer, it will be so advanced that we will probably not be able to comprehend it with our human minds. It seems arrogant to me to say that there is no possibility of a designer because science says so. Go back as far as you want in the scientific process, and you'll find a trail of scientists being wrong as far as the eye can see. But now we have a complete understanding of everything, right?
Sounds like you have an excellent start to a false premise going here.
This will be an imperfect example, but do you have children? If you do, do you control each and every aspect of their lives or do you control a few things, set some ground rules, and let them figure out the rest?
You can't prove there is no designer no more than I could prove there is (if I wanted to). Which is kind of the point of Tim's long post, that in the end, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense.
I could refute about 90% of what you wrote simply by explaining point-by-point how you've subtly misrepresented what I said and/or mean knowing full well the actual intention of what I wrote. Your commentary is full of straw.
But I won't. I have a much simpler refutation: If what I described is so transparently foolish, why does it annoy you so much given your self-described intimations of sophistication? Methinks thou protesteth way too much ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
But you can find *evidence* supporting the theory of evolution. You can create testable hypotheses. This brings it down from the level of metaphysical whimsy.
I probably should have said "illogical". Bad choice of words on my part.
I'd imagine that you could take a reasonably bright scientific minded person from 500 years ago, and after a little bringing up to speed, get him to have a basic understanding of particle physics. Maybe 500 years from now someone in this group will be able to say the same for Intelligent Design. I rather doubt it though.
I agree with you in saying that we humans don't know everything, and much science has been wrong (though how much it's been right and how science has contributed to our way of life is a discussion we'll save for another day) I'll take it a step further and say that there is much we are utterly incapable of understanding just as a dog is utterly incapable of understanding algebra.
So you're suggesting that the "Oh God!" scenario is the Intelligent Design position or your position? That the designer set out a few ground rules, then let the rest play out? Seems a little loose to me.
Well, some things are a little hard to prove one way or the other. But with the limited mental faculties that this human being has at his disposal, it just seems that it's *probable* that there is no intelligent designer calling some, most or all of the shots.
I could say the world was put together as it is now in 60 seconds by a handful of spirits some time last week and all memory you think you have of time before that is just an illusion. Like Tim said, nothing can be proven in an absolute sense... but some things I feel pretty safe in dismissing.
And while some in the movement may not have a religious agenda, ID does seem to me suspiciously like warmed over Creationism.
How could you ever prove that, given your metaphysical stance? Do you mean:
Your outdated notions of the state of philosophy? You were arguing against an old school (The Vienna School) of thought, not Science as methodology.
Your unreasonable expectation that Science adopt the doubts of philosophy, rather than use it as a guide and warning, and inspiration? Science is a practical endeavor to understand the world. It's limitations are well-known, but they don't distinguish it from, say ID. It's actually the strengths of Science, its predictive value, that distinguish it from flights of fancy like ID.
Your implication that ID might be, somehow, immune to the same limitations of the theory of evolution? Even while lacking its strengths?
Your use of our ignorance of the origin of life as an attack on our (well-established) theories of the origin of species?
Your flat-out wrong assertion that when I examine where "parts" come from and why they "work" will drive me inexorably to the conclusion there is a builder? If you were a biochemist (I am) conversant in genetics (I am) and population variation (I am) do you think that would be sufficient *background* with which to make this examination? Do you think having such a background would be helpful to such an examination?
That was a very nice question. An opportunity to criticize the Big Bang Theory, and offer sources, cites.
I would have been very interested in knowing how that would undermine the theory of evolution or support ID seeing as how it's, as you say, irrelevant^Wofftopic.
By the way, I found your posts in the Jimmy Carter thread to be really well done.
And the misdirection and intellectual prestidigitation begins. I guess I can't avoid swatting flies tonight:
I never said I could "prove" anything, merely that I could refute the previous post's dishonesty by disclosing it as such. Your cavalier introduction of the notion of "proof" is not binding upon me to defend because it is *your* idea, not mine.
If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think and speak as one and not just pout because you don't like the content of the conversation.
I was arguing *against* nothing. I was attempting to describe why no system of knowledge can prove its premises. At no point did I attack science or its methodology.
If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to learn to think clearly and parse sentences for what they mean not invent subtle misrepresentations thereof more ammenable to your inadequate rhetorical and reasoning skills.
I expressed none of my own expectations about science. I tried to articulate the claims of the IDers as collateral to a larger question I was asked. Moreover, philosophy is not expressing "doubt" (what a cute way to trivialize thousands of years of thoughtful discourse). Philosophy is naming very specific limitations about what we can even know. It takes a religious person to ignore those limitations and proceed anyway.
If you're going to play with the Grownups, you have to accept that you are just a religious as the most devout Theist, you're just less honest about it and your (purely mechanical) god is less interesting. It's considered Bad Form to try and hide this sort of thing.
I said this from the outset. Go back and look for the word "utility" in my previous post. I'm glad you agree with me on this.
Agreement again, surely there must be a God! The limitations in question are common across *all* systems of knowledge ... which I said in the first place.
If you're going to play with the Grownups, be sure you're not actually parroting what you are putatively arguing against. It makes you look very silly.
To the extent that it is predictive that's true. However, not every part of contemporary science is predictive. For instance, current evolutionary theory is no such thing - at least not at any fine grained level of detail. Todays "science" embraces far more than just those portions of disciplines that are predictive. There is lots of induction and deduction taking place far beyond the boundaries of being able to be predictive. Oh, and by the way ... "predictive" is nothing more than science demonstrating utility value. It does not make the premises of science inherently more valid than the premises of other systems of thought.
If you want to play with the Grownups, you can't get convenient amnesia about the parts of your system that don't fit your own line of argument.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Where in my original post did I even _hint_ that "ID might be, somehow, immune to the same limitations"? I realize it was a long post, but after all, I did start out by describing at some length how all epistemologies have *common* limitations and boundaries.
Grownups do no lie about each other - well civil ones don't anyway. Lying about your rhetorical opponent's position is a political tactic, is the sign of a weak argument, and a personal moral failing on the part of the liar.
The theories are not "well established". Science has at least a 2500 year tradition (and perhaps more) of which less than 150 have held some version on the origin of the species you espouse. Moreover, the arguments for that theory are: a) All indirect - they cannot be verified by direct experiment and b) Are missing key supporting elements (like transition fossils). Since this is so, that theory has to be logically seen as being *weaker* than one that has experimental confirmation.
This is not to say the theory is wrong, merely not as strong ... and therefore far from being "well-established". Unless, of course, you choose to believe it absent those things. Such a position is fine with me, but let's call it what it really is: Faith.
Grownups who really treasure their own Faith don't try and pretend it does not exist, they celebrate it.
It was not "my" assertion. That sentence comes from an attempt on my part to catalog the current position of IDers. They are, in fact, wrong about this one. You are an existence proof that some people rebel at the idea of a builder no matter how elegantly designed the building is because your Faith precludes the possibility that you are not at the top of the knowledge food chain.
Grownups do not make transparent attempts to tar their rhetorical opposition with sentences taken out of context so far as to entirely twist the point beyond recognition.
Tsk, tsk. This sounds suspiciously like an argument from Authority - how very Vatican of you. I was under the impression that the science was a discipline in which this was never done.
So now we've come full circle. Your fulminations demonstrate my very first point in the earlier post: What you "know" depends entirely on what you accept as being "true". You haven't refuted me even slighly - you've served as an example of what I wrote. The only real difference between you and the most devout Theist or one of the IDers, is that the latter admit their Faith and their God. You have both and pretend they don't exist.
And you are angry, strident, and defensive signifying self-doubt and fear ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
You need to understand the context of the quote. Someone described ID as irrational "mumbo jumbo". I responded with the above quote as an example where non-provable assumptions served as the basis for *science*. It had nothing whatsoever to do with "undermining evolution" or "supporting ID". It had to do with trying to swat away this contention (implicit in much of that thread) that science is somehow epistemicly "purer" and/or that ID is an idiotic position. In fact, ID is built on Faith and so is Science.
You wriggle and squirm, but you can't escape your own words:
refute: To disprove and overthrow by argument, evidence, or countervailing proof; to prove to be false or erroneous; to confute; as, to refute arguments; to refute testimony; to refute opinions or theories; to refute a disputant.
A "disproof" is a proof of a negative. You're logic is slippery and disingenuous. It's also untrue.
I said that as a joke about your attempting to "refute" something when after all that blather you regurgitated about the futility of proofs. You get it? It's a joke about your apparent inability to keep track of your own arguments. It's an amusing geeky joke, at your argument's expense. Get it? Hahah!
[stupid arrogant ad hominem, snipped]
You did this (describe undecidability in a pomo populist science/philosophy ignorant way) to explain your source of criticisms. You assert ID's "views": "The assumption that the mechnical/material view is sufficient is wrong." Who's argument is that? That went out years ago, and in fact complexity theory is still in its infancy. So if that isn't science (seems "utilitarian" enough to me, so I assume you're asserting the inadequacy thereof) then is it philosophy? 'Cause it's old and crusty in that field too, my little poseur. Are you going to back away from that statement as well?
Look, if you *are* going to state an argument and back it up, you really
*must* make an effort to keep things clear, alright? If you aren't making an argument against outdated notions of the state of philosophy, don't include it in your response! A please remember to maintain a distinction between philosophy and science as it's very important.
[another attempt to smear and annoy, snipped]
Oh, so you aren't saying anything real, or relevant? Is that why you change the subject and natter on some more about my "cute trivializations"? Again, if it's not a part of your argument, don't include it! Sheesh.
[another childish name calling, snipped]
But it appeared to be completely irrelevant to your--gosh, you don't really have an argument so far, do you?
Ahem. This is relevant to your explanation of critique of the Big Bang Theory as it pertains to your disregard for evolution viz. ID, how?
[asinine wannabe childish arrogance, gone!]
So we have discovered something! ID has NO value or relevance.
Here my little poseur friend, I can say that you are clearly out of your depth and foundering in your own ideology.
Billions of dollars are invested each year in the predictive value of the mechanics of evolution and natural selection. Trillions of dollars a year are made using the predictive value of the mechanics behind evolution and natural selection. Trillions.
I'm the one that used practice to demonstrate Science's value, not you.
You try to validate ID putting it above Science, by saying that because positivism has been debunked that anything goes. Well that works in philosophy, Buttercup, but science isn't philosophy. Science is influenced by philosophy, but ID isn't philosophy, and it aint science. It's a mental exercise.
Also predictive is *considerably* more than a demonstration of utility value. You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and if they match, you have a healthy world view.
[stupid little non-sequitur ad hominem (and a falsehood), snipped]
Because I inferred it from your inclusion of these limitations for evolution, as a part of your (still upcoming... hopefully soon now) expose of how the BBT is crap and why that shows ID > Evo as a theory? Because you are using these arguments against evolution? Because it doesn't leave you with an argument for ID if you disown it? Because your apparent task was to show us why ID was valid, where evolution is a big lie? Are you not arguing for ID? Am I to take it from this that you are just making lots of noise and my "sound and fury" theory was right?
[stupid ad hominem, blah blah...]
How much development has occurred in the last 150 years. Yup.
Somewhere is a proof that you CANNOT GO BACKWARDS IN TIME, involving dT/dT as an impossibility. Sometimes the best you can do is make inference. That isn't a weakness in Science, it's a limitation of our own abilities that spans all our observation. Nobody has ever bounced a perfectly elastic star off another. Does that mean stars don't follow normal newtonian physics? No, we make inferences between them and earthly objects.
Missing fossils is NOT a refutation either. That's very simple to explain if you just look at the amount of change to the geography over the years. And guess what, Buttercup: there have been many, many instances where there *were* no transitional fossils, BUT THEN THEY FOUND SOME. Isn't that amazing! In one instant they were an intervention by an Invisible Diddler, and the next, just another entry in the fossil record.
These are really weak arguments, poseur, that exploit exactly that uncertainty of the Philosophy of science (and the honest appraisal of that) against the endeavor. Philosophy of science acknowledges that, and science tries to overcome it by the means available.
Ah, another find! It's not wrong because of that. I'm glad we agree the theory is not wrong. At least, I think we do. You'll probably deny that. When did we start talking about faith and belief? I was talking about validity of theories. Evolution has validity and is well-established as a theory. There is huge amounts of data to support it: in the fossil record, in breeding of livestock, in biology, in population studies.... ID on the other hand is spaghetti monsterism. Whimsy. Wishful thinking. A philosophical puzzle. There's no way to begin to establish it even as a theory. The best you can hope for is that thing you seem so disdainful of: faith. There's nothing wrong with it, but it has no place in the establishment of a theory of speciation.
[more pretending to be a grownup (with an argument), snipped]
You are the one right here making the argument. Take responsibility for your own actions, young man. It was your task to demonstrate an argument for why The Big Bang was nothing more than a lot of hot air as far as theories go, and then explain why that would demonstrate that ID was better'n evolution. Oh wait... we already established that you don't have one. You've backed away from everything thus far.
I make no professions of faith. Quite the opposite. Actually, in my own mind I do regarding how to treat people, community responsibilities, and life choices like that. Those are irrelevant here, though.
There is no assertion in anything I said that I am at the top of the "knowledge food chain". You're all alone, teetering up there, Buttercup.
[silly child prattling, snipped]
You don't know what that is. An argument by authority is like saying the Mayor says the space shuttle blew up because the stars weren't right, so it must be true. Get a little reading done, and learn up on your fallacies, Buttercup.
I don't get an answer to my question, then. I don't get a clarification of an argument? I just get spurious accusations of fallacious arguments? I was expecting something demonstrable from you, some way to legitimize ID as a theory that would somehow put it in contention with evolution as a theory. And I was willing and ready to put up my knowledge as a counterpoint. Instead I get this, this spin. I really truly think you should change your name to SPIN DULIEALOT. Because that's what you're doing. You're a spinmeister, nothing more. Pathetic.
You were going to provide us with an argument, but you back away from everything when you get your nose rubbed in your fallacies.
Is it a habit of yours, to provoke people with your snide little arrogant shit comments, and then turn it against their argument? You are a pathetic little monster of a boy, Buttercup. And dishonest. You have succeeded in annoying me. That was your intention precisely so that you could pull this little dagger out, and turn my annoyance against me. Slimey.
You keep confusing science with philosophy, that's your problem. You know the word epistemology, but you don't understand it. (there's a (very) little joke there, if you look)
don't trip while you backpeddle away from your statements.
So your decision isn't influenced by the Creationist conspiracy surrounding IDs birth?
You aren't concerned with the Genie In The Bottle problem associated with it (the "builder" is also so complex he must have also had a "builder")?
You aren't concerned that it merely shifts the complexity to unverifiable causes when there is a plausible, testable, and evident alternative (it seems to allow speciation to occur but attributes the selection process among the variants to a "builder" rather than a "natural" mechanism.)?
You aren't concerned that many of the "arguments" made against evolution by ID's proponents appear to attack problems that aren't associated with it (the "genesis" issue, origin of life vs. origin of species)?
You don't grow suspicious of motive when you notice that it is in many ways indistinguishable from evolution *except* that it requires there be an intelligence at work controlling the machinery?
You aren't upset that many of the arguments attack problems with human thought, verifiability, and logic, that are endemic to all thought (ID included) and as such aren't relevant to science, but to broader questions of philosophy?
You aren't surprised that an idea is being advanced that rightly belongs to a metaphysical discussion, not one of practice, and therefore is orthogonal to a critique on the validity of a theory of speciation?
These are some of the problems I have with Intelligent Design. I'd be interested in knowing how you overcome these.
Your use of language is sloppy. While "prove" is one possible way to undersand "refute", it is not the only one. "Proof" has a very particular meaning in the philosophical context of this discussion which is why I avoided the word and used "refute" instead.
There was nothing "joking" about it. You are snide and condescending which is why I replied in kind. If you want a serious discussion, you have to maintain your side of it. And, here's an example of your contemptible manner, however subtle: I *NEVER* said proofs were "futile" or even hinted at it. I was *very* specific that proofs *about starting propositions* are impossible. I then went on to explain just where proofs *are* possible (in the context of validating a theorem against an axiom). You know all this, of course, but want to slide in some idiotic transformation of what I said - it's the only way you can defend your increasingly-enfeebled position.
The IDers. Are you capable of reading and understanding standard English? I was reciting a list of ID claims as I understood them, not asserting whether I agreed with those claims or not.
Another attempt to step out of your self-inflicted middenheap. Complexity theory - whatever its current state - does not undermine the mechanical/material premises baked into all contemporary science. It speaks to the question of just *how* the parts get organized as they do. It does not, however, change the notion that science is sufficiently served by examining the parts and not the metaphysical whole. I keep repeating the same things here in hopes it will penetrate your already made-up mind.
Making things "clear" is impossible when the other party neither honors the common use of language nor is capable of grasping short sentences with simple words.
So, if I understand you (and I'm trying, *unlike* you), your claim is that the philosophy of science in current use no longer limits itself to understanding the universe in purely mechanical terms. That is, there is a legitimate teleological (why and from where) dimension to science as currently practiced. Show me.
I got asked a question
I attempted to answer the question in two parts:
a) A discussion on the limitations of what can be "proven" b) A catalog of what I understand ID's claims are
You trivialized 2a) by reducing it to "doubt" (Probably because you didn't understand it)
You repeatedly tried to hang 2b) on me as if it were *my* stated position. (Because you're lonely and need someone to argue with.)
Certainly not one simple enough for you to grasp.
Where in the post in question did I even *mention* the Big Bang or demonstrate a "disregard" for evolution. Just for the record, I accept that evolution operates at some scales. I am less convinced that it is sufficient to produce the currently-observed biocomplexity. I am open to it being demonstrated one way or the other.
Where on earth were you educated? Clearly formal logic was not taught there. The fact that science is sometimes predictive speaks in no way to whether ID has relevance. Just because
*you* think ID is a "flight of fancy" does not make it so.
The underlying mathematical foundations, however, have value in their own right and have found utility value in other disciplines.
I don't know for whom you are putting on the demonstration. I stipulated that science has utility value in my initial post. Oh, I forgot, Big Words confuse you. Let me translate: You didn't need to demonstrate that science has utility to me - I already knew that and said so long before you polluted this thread.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I defy you to cite any example in this thread where I have done this. I have attempted to *define* ID, and have never "put it above" science. Then again, I do not have the slavish religious devotion to any epistemology you have for science.
Your hubris is exceeded only by your profound ignorance. No system of knowledge can even exist without a philosophical starting point, implicit- or explicit. Science isn't philosophy - it is the *application* of a philosophical theory of knowledge. ID most assuredly is a philosophy and may- or may not be shown to also be science. The jury is still out on that one.
Really. Do grace us with more of your sophisticated expositions on the matter. Beyond utility, just what does prediction "demonstrate" for science?
You measure your ideas against the world my little poseur, and
I have never taken the amount of controlled substances it would take to match your world view, nor do I care to.
So, you went from a non-existent claim on my part, to an invented premise on yours, to a consequent inferrence to conclude that I insinuated something I never did. I hope you are a better scientist than writer/thinker or someone needs to pull your grant money.
Not once have I done so. Show me.
ID and evolution are potentially entirely compatible. You would however, have to give up some of your current faith that you are the epitome of knowlege.
No. In this particular case I was trying to define it.
I was answering a question, that's all. But I got the added benefit of watching you soil yourself repeatedly. It's been entertaining.
It's not a "weakness" in Science, at least not inherently. But is speaks to how much certainty we can ascribe to a theory. A theory that can be directly experimentally verified/refuted is far strong than one built entirely on inferrence. All scientific theories live on a continuum between these two endpoints with a corresponding degree of certainty.
I never said it was. But it raises fair questions about the correctness of the theory.
But the overwhelming body of animal fossil variety is Cambrian - a relatively short 100 Million years or so. Certainly not enough for macro evolution to take place.
Are you saying that today's theory of evolution is so clearly certain it bears no further scrutiny. If so, you are a fool. The science in this area is far from established, and questioning it is not a retreat to mysticism, an affirmation of ID, or any such thing. It is a fair question to a discipline that keeps claiming how unbiased it is. Scientists are not high priests and can fairly be questioned when the evidence for their position is weak, inferrential, and cannot be examined by experiment.
The flat earth was once well-established. That didn't make it so. *You* are the one introducing Faith because you come unglued when I merely record the position *of another party* that questions your orthodoxy.
No one, including the IDers, questions that evolution works in some contexts. What is being questioned is macro-evolution (going from primordial ooze to fish to .... to Ted Kennedy).
Ah, the High Priest has spoken. Off with the infidels' heads.
You have exhibited more Faith in the last 10 paragraphs than most religious people do in a year. You trust a theory (macro evolution leading to speciation) that cannot be experimentally verified, is built entirely on inferrence, has no fossil examples, would have to have made a huge step-function jump in just 100 million years, and has no intelligent cause to which you are willing to stipulate . You're entitled to hold this theory, but don't kid yourself, you're more "religious" than Pat Robertson.
Huh? Where did I do this? I never ONCE mentioned the Big Bang in the post that initially got your pantyhose all bunched up. You are either elderly, confused, drug bestotted, or just addicted to argument so someone/anyone will talk to you.
You make repeated professions of faith in this email alone. You believe things without evidence. You discard contrary positions without evidence. You denigrate anyone who does not share your views. You are deeply religious. Your theology is the scientific method and your deity is your own intellect. All well and good, but quit claiming you're not religious - you are.
You cannot explain calculus to a cat. There no explanation clearer possible than I have already given. You just don't want to accept it because you'd have to acknowlege your initial characterization of my position was WRONG. And High Priests are never wrong.
How did you reach the conclusion that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive? Oh, I forgot, it wasn't in any of your holy books.
I am entirely clear on the distinction and have no conqsequent problem:
1) The philosophy of science requires "faith" in certain unprovable starting points about the nature and efficacy of the methods of science.
2) The practice of science is built upon the philosophy of science.
3) By Transitive Closure, the practice of science is thus built (ultimately, subtlely) on a kind of "faith". That fact that this belief is non-religious does not make it any less "faith".
And science was built on the foolishness of Tyco Brache who was utterly wrong. Guilt By Association.
This isn't remotely a problem for anyone who has ever done an inductive proof or integrated over a discontinuity in math - at least not if they sit down and thing about it for any length of time. Baseless Argument.
The current theory found in the scientific community is full of unverifiable causes which are not testable. False Dichotomy.
One does not measure the merits of a system on the basis of that systems' bad practicioners. Ad Hominem.
This is not inherently a problem. It may be evidence both parties are onto something. Overstated.
You cannot seperate the practice of science from its epistemic roots. Bad Dualism.
Utter baloney. Do this though experiment: Say that the IDers were able to establish just their philosophical claims. Do you seriously believe this would have no consequence to the practice of science and its currently-held theories? More Bad Dualism.
Since every single one of your "problems" are artifical, overstated, or flatly bogus, you can "overcome" them by applying some small modicum of honesty to your internal discourse. There are problems with ID as currently proposed, but you haven't nailed a single one of them.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.