NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Gary, you are not defending ' "the" theory'.
You're not even, or especially not even, defending your own "theory".
Insofar as there is 'the' "theory" of ID, it is encapsulated in your banal, uncontroversial, and non-theoretic, assertion that some parts of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause.
That is not a theory. It is an unarguable, and unargued, fact. It is also a philosophical position.
It is not a scientific position. It might be a presupposition of science, or of some science, but it has no aspect of theory about it. Nor any aspect of science. It is, at best, pre-scientific.
But its major flaws are that it is entirely unfruitful, entirely uninteresting (except, in small ways, philosophically), and entirely lacking in explanatory power. It is ambiguous, equivocal, unspecific, and generally useless to intellectual endeavors of any sort. It requires substantial scaffolding to even be meaningful. Scaffolding you have been chided about for 9+ years and which you still fail to provide. Refuse to provide. Some defense that is.
What we find in your output utterly fails to expand beyond the level of entirely unfruitful, uninteresting, and lacking in explanatory power. Worse, it patently fails when presented with unambiguous 'features' of the universe generally or universally taken to be 'best explained by intelligent cause'. We've been over this repeatedly, and you've offered no defense of your failure to provide any level of explanation whatsoever for these features.
As always, epic fail. Wrapped in the guise of deflection and distraction away from your own failures to the failed broader movement of which you are barely an insignificant part.
Way to waste a life man.
|
