Mindrover
Posts: 65
Joined: April 2010
|
I know that this must come from the "Blindingly Obvious News" desk, but Joe cannot possibly be thinking his arguments through.
His argument that it is not up to ID to "prove a negative" regarding macroevolution is a prime example.
While Joe may be trying to draw parallels with James Randi's inability to disprove telepathy, he forgets the other part of the argument.
Joe has not been asked to form a coherent thesis from nothingness - he is being asked to provide evidence to his assertion that there is a barrier to macroevolution. While you cannot prove a negative, you can certainly disprove a positive argument.
This is not a case of "If never A then always B", this is a case of "explain why you say A can never happen". "B" is not even in the discussion.
All that we can take from this, avoiding derogatory cheap-shots, is that he cannot prove that macroevolution is wrong.
I congratulate Joe for admitting such.
|
