Of course, when it comes to theological discussions, apologists run and scream from this method, primarily because it does undermines their beliefs..
Once in awhile it is nice to have confirmation as to how viable the method is.
More than two (2) years ago, I mentioned a California lawsuit where an individual named David Coppedge argued he was originally demoted and eventually terminated because of his belief in Intelligent Design aka Creationism. I wrote an initial post regarding the basic facts with a follow-up applying the facts as they existed within my method.
I indicated, utilizing my method, David Coppedge would lose, because he came across as an obnoxious employee and was more likely terminated for that, than for any philosophical scientific disagreement. Subsequent Facts bolstered my initial impression and further sustained the methodology’s initial determination.
Well…the Judge rendered a decision. And with little surprise, it came out exactly as I predicted. To demonstrate just how little apologists understand this method, the Discovery Institute wrote a short article stating,
Whatever the judge's ultimate ruling in the case, the evidence remains what it is, and people can (and should) evaluate it for themselves.
A neutral party (the judge) did. And found against them.