"Scientific Skepticism": Is there such a thing; and if so, what does it look like?

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@jammycakes

If you don’t want to be accused of making unsubstantiated assertions, then substantiate your assertions. In otherwise, provide evidence, cite your sources, and show your working.

Of course, there are volumes written on that which are accessible to all. To ask me to summarize them is an unreasonable ploy.

@jammycakes

If you don’t want to be accused of irreproducible results, make sure that other people can reproduce your results.

Of course, much of what evolutionists claim as evidence is not reproducible, because the evidence is in the inaccessible past, not the present. The same for ID. Both positions must appeal to the preponderance of the evidence.

@jammycakes

It’s as simple as this, Craig. Science has rules, and if you don’t want to be accused of breaking the rules, then don’t break the rules.

Science does not have rules. Scientists do. And for evolutionary scientists, the rules are rigged–“Head I win, tails you lose.” The reasonable rule is that science is a search for the truth wherever it leads. That means that if the evidence points to design, we cannot exclude that evidence because it does not lead to a naturalistic conclusion.