After writing that last post, I decided to have a look at the comments to macht’s
Commenter Daniel wrote:
“if some modern scientist happened to introduce something supernatural into science and it was testable”
See, I don’t get this – ID keeps missing the point, that it’s impossible to simultaneously use supernatural explanations and have those explanations be testable. How can you test miracles and magic??
Good question. Here’s macht’s answer:
For those of you who have been following my posts lately, this is an excellent example of an argument from ignorance.
There are plenty of organizations (Randi, CSICOP, etc.) that claim they can make scientific claims about the supernatural, paranormal, etc.
The only scientific claim that the Amazing Randi or CSICOP make about the supernatural or paranormal is that they have never mainfested themselves under properly controlled conditions. They investigate claims of the paranormal, not the paranormal itself.
Daniel also made another important point in his reply:
Um, not quite there macht. There’s a big difference between ID and the organizations you mention. They’re trying to naturally explain the to-date supernatural; ID isn’t trying to decipher the “Designer’s” purposes, plans or means at all.
You might as well perpetrate already debunked claims like “ID is just like SETI or forensics or archaeology” while you’re at it too.
Well said. I think macht shouldn’t be so cavalier about using words like “ignorance.”