Recently, an ID-friendly scientist assured me that intelligent design would easily be accepted if only the ID guys would come up with evidence. To my mind, that shows the difficulty people have in understanding what is at stake: the very question of what may count as evidence. Here is how I replied:  ÂÂ
But as Thomas Kuhn points out in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigms determine what counts as evidence.
Mark what follows:
If materialism is assumed to be true and Darwinism is the creation story of materialism, then Darwinism is the best available explanation for the history of life.
So Darwinism is treated as true.
I am NOT saying that that follows logically.
Materialism could be true but its orthodox creation story could be untrue at the same time. Some other materialist story could better account for the evidence, for example. Read More ›