So you rationalize.

Dan: You don't know anything about the design specifications, and can rationalize any sort of design you want.

The design specifications are suggested by biological structures. Living organisms and physical laws constrain empirical claims about design.

Are you saying that your arguments for design aren't rationalizations???

That's right. They're arguments for evidence of design.

Dan: (My apologies for droning on, but I think it related to Robertson's case. You see, I think it fair to say that Pat Robertson's rationalizations are based on the same mistaking of opinion/scripture for empirical fact as that which Bradford is espousing.)

That's stereotypical thinking but hard to document based on TT comments. I may be wrong about some things but my reasons reference causes and biological systems. Robertson's predictions were purely personal in nature. They were not even derived from the scriptural doctrines he says he believes.

The best conclusion to draw from this series of events is that Robertson is full of bullshit when he claims to be speaking for his god and that the next time he makes a prediction, no one should take him seriously.

Yep, and I'm sure Ed would agree, which is why he's wrong when he says that supernatural explanations are categorically untestable. If that were true, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything from Pat Robertsons, um, less-than-substantiated track record. But, obviously we can conclude that he's a quack who simply pulled his predictions, which have no supernatural inspiration, from out the wrong end.

The mere fact that something can be rationalized by a determined enough person doesn't mean it isn't testable. Humans can rationalize literally anything, especially if they're not altogether there. That this person exists is evidence enough of that.

But yes, if telic explanations are ever found to explain an experimental result better than non-telic explanations, then those explanations will be more parsimonious. Until then….

(My apologies for droning on, but I think it related to Robertson's case. You see, I think it fair to say that Pat Robertson's rationalizations are based on the same mistaking of opinion/scripture for empirical fact as that which Bradford is espousing.)

Dan: Correct, it doesn't eliminate all unempirical base assumptions, just the God assumption. As I said, eliminating such an assumption is more parsimonious, and at least as precise in explanatory capacity.

Parsimony is secondary to accuracy in desireability. Eliminating the possibility of teleology does not serve the interest of reality when teleology is indicated.

I beat you to it:

Having said all that, let's agree on the main lesson here: Pat Robertson is a wingnut.