The hazy mist of obfuscation

Whether or not ID is religious is irrelevant, argued Shermer (*gasp!* — yes, he essentially said this). The bottom line is that ID isn't testable or falsifiable, claimed Shermer, and ID proponents haven't done enough research and science to develop ID into a testable scientific theory.

Darwinists and ID advocates are battling over a red herring: they're both right and wrong!

Darwinists are right in the sense that, yes, of course change happens over time, but Darwinists are wrong in that, no, materialism cannot account for the complexity found in nature and the emergence of organization and information in the universe (e.g., the bio-friendly laws of nature, from the cosmic to the subatomic).

ID advocates are right in the sense that information only derives from intelligence, but they're wrong in their approach; for example, the notion of irreducible complexity is not sound: reality had to incrementally accrue from something - the best candidate for this "something" is the Big Seed.

So how to split the difference? Reducible teleology!

And as for Shermer trying to invalidate ID by saying it's not falsifiable, I've got a straightforward request: Mr. Shermer, please prove to me that an infinite number of universes do not exist. Can you do it? No, you can't; therefore, the multiverse theory is not sound - because it is NOT falsifiable or testable.

We're left with two choices: an infinite number of causes (i.e., the multiverse) somehow brought our universe into being, or one cause (i.e., Aristotle's unmoved Mover) somehow brought our universe into being.

What does Occam's razor tell us?

Occam's razor: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.

It's almost as if the Darwinists and the ID'ers are playing the same fric & frac charade as the Democrats and the Republicans: everybody ignores the obvious and self-divides into two make-believe hostile camps - and then of course they need money to carry on with their Punch and Judy antics. That's where the hazy mist of obfuscation kicks in.

Am I wrong? Let's see somebody prove I'm wrong.