KairosFocus, he who shall not be real-named (Henceforth KF), habitual censor over at Uncommon Descent, perpetually crows about his long-standing challenge:
provide a 6,000 word feature-length article that justifies the Darwinist tree of life from its OOL roots up through the Cambrian revo — as in Darwin’s Doubt territory — and other major formation of body plans up to and including our own origins, and we will host it here at UD, one of the leading ID blogs in the world. We are perfectly willing to host a parallel post with another site. Only, you must provide thesis and observation based evidence that solidly justifies your conclusions in light of inference to best explanation, the vera causa principle and other basic principles of sound scientific induction. Also, you must actually argue the case in outline, a summing up if you will. You must strive to avoid Lewontin’s a priori evolutionary materialism, and if you would redefine science on such terms you will have to reasonably justify why that is not a question-begging definition, in a way that is historically and philosophically soundly informed. Of course, you may link sources elsewhere, but you must engage the task of providing a coherent, non-question-begging, cogent argument in summary at the level of a feature-length serious magazine article . . . no literature bluffs in short.
[some format lost because I can’t be arsed]
KF is of course free to set the bar for his personal satisfaction at whatever pathetic level of detail he requires, but given that he’s often accused of being a massive hypocrite I’m sure he’ll be happy to provide us with a corresponding ID narrative.
I mean, ID isn’t just a negative case against Evolution, is it? 😉
Things I’m sure he’s eager to include:
Who is / was the designer?
What was their motivation(s)?
What was their method of fabrication?
How many design interventions were there?
What specifically was designed?
What specifically wasn’t designed?
Please feel free to add your questions in the comments.
I’d ask that if math is invoked for any design justification then it is comprehensively completed and not just talked about in a big numbers / hand-wavy sort of way. Any new concepts you bring to the table must be empirically tested rigorously so we can attest to their design detection capabilities.
Thanks in advance KF, we know you’ll engage us in good faith and we’re eager to have productive dialogue.
EDIT: vjtorley has started a parallel thread over at UD. Thanks VJ.
Let’s hope we can have some good, scientific dialogue.