The ID label has many disinterested and disagreeing proponents. No doubt, however, the part where ID proposes that life was invented by something smart is what it's named after, and what we are arguing about in a Dover courtroom, and is the subject of this thread.
There is no cohesive, singular ID proposition other than that design of a particular object is recognizable by distinguishing attributes.
Namely, that it couldn't have occured naturally, I presume. Insufferable complexity is not ID, it is a supposed, but remarkably shy, piece of evidence in support of ID.
My hypothetical statement is "due to complexity and interdependence new living things can only arise from nonliving matter via intentional (i.e. intelligent) assembly."
right. insufferable complexity. Or close enough. A close kissing cousin to the brain-dead theory attributed to scientists by creationists, that lightning assembled protists instantaneously in a prehistoric mud puddle. Insufferable complexity is a mirage. At no point in life's history is it likely that anything evolved instantaneously, such as to make these phony insurmountable odds calculations about them meaningful.
Not every view in the ID camp is verifiable or falsifiable. But my assertion is both.
Yea, well, in theory. most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable. That's insufficient by miles to quality as a science theory to be trumpeted on the cover of a science book.
When scientists are finally able to find any way of creating life, they will be putting my hypothesis to the test, whether intentionally or not. If they discover a mechanism of self assembly, it will falsify my statement. If they intelligently assemble a living organism, it will support (not prove) my hypothesis.
Which, along with a buck and a half, will buy you a cup of coffee.
Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. It might be verifiable. The difficulty of verification is unpredictable. Either way, abiogenesis does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis by the most commonly accepted standard of demarcation.
Abiogenesis is potentially falsifiable much in the same way that propositions such as "Therapsids are the direct ancestors of dinosaurs" are. Woese is sneaking up on life's origin in exactly this manner, by treating the mutational clocks of our smallest ancestors in a manner similar to that employed by paleontologists to investigate the ancestry of dinosaurs: by treating DNA as fossil evidence, of a sort, and making predictions about what will be be discovered that isn't presently discovered, and seeing these predictions either succeed or fail.
None of which, makes abiogenesis a science to presently take terribly seriously, much as is the case with your anti-biogenesis theory. Except that the biogenesis theory might have tangible odds of producing evidence. The theory that biogenesis could not ever occur by any means whatsoever will never produce reasonable evidence, because "any means whatsoever" is an infinite set.
"No doubt, however, the part where ID proposes that life was invented by something smart is what it's named after, and what we are arguing about in a Dover courtroom, and is the subject of this thread."
The debate is over whether ID is science AND whether it violates the legal theory of "separation of church and state " (a legal concept which was recently rejected in another case).
"Namely, that it couldn't have occurred naturally, I presume."
Actually even that is not agreed upon. Some IDers say the conditions that permit or cause evolution are proof of intelligence. Maybe, but I doubt it could be falsified in the strict sense that I am demanding.
"Insufferable complexity is a mirage."
There are randomly complex things, and there is information complexity. Information theory applies. We have nonlinear systems. We have interdependence. We have the design encoded into DNA which has the potential to be transmitted as information by other means. (In other words, it might be possible to reproduce an organism from the DNA blueprint with just the information contained in it.)
"most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable."
Untrue. Many statements might even be true or useful but not falsifiable. In fact, mathematical statements are not falsifiable except where there is a specific correlation to some natural phenomenon. And in such a case you are falsifying the natural process rather than the math.
"That's insufficient by miles to quality as a science theory to be trumpeted on the cover of a science book."
Agreed. There must be supporting evidence in the form of observation, experimentation or at least a mathematical model which might propose how to assemble life. I think it will happen within the next ten years.
"Which, along with a buck and a half, will buy you a cup of coffee."
Whether it is useful or scientists find it attractive is another subject. I am tired of hearing lame attacks thrown about in every creation-evultion-science-religion debate saying ID is unscientific. The ones saying this are either unable to define science, or they are unable to argue against my case. (Of course that does not prevent many dishonest ones from continuing to spread this falsehood.)
"Abiogenesis is potentially falsifiable much in the same way that propositions such as 'Therapsids are the direct ancestors of dinosaurs' are. Woese is sneaking up on life's origin in exactly this manner, by treating the mutational clocks of our smallest ancestors in a manner similar to that employed by paleontologists to investigate the ancestry of dinosaurs: by treating DNA as fossil evidence, of a sort, and making predictions about what will be be discovered that isn't presently discovered, and seeing these predictions either succeed or fail."
Sorry, "abiogenesis is falsifiable because common ancestry is falsifiable" does not cut the mustard. Neither are falsifiable. This is the biggest problem with treating natural history as a science in general. (it is part science and part history. And history cannot be falsified. It cannot even be tested in a controlled environment.)
It is circular when trying to apply the demarcation standard to historical events. It is possible to superimpose a variation of any interpretation of evidence on the actual evidence. This is because nothing ever can be truly falsified. If a prediction is wrong, the theory will only be modified to accommodate the new data. (And I am not talking about modifying a fundamental, universal principle. This is more akin to a fortune teller getting some predictions right and thereby proving that fortune telling is a science.)
The bottom line is that no matter how much this fundamental flaw is hidden by piles of data, HISTORICAL EVENTS ARE NOT FALSIFIABLE, PERIOD.
That is why there is a difference between speciation and common descent. The first can be observed, even if in small increments. The latter can never be observed. We can observe continued speciation, but the reverse cannot be demonstrated conclusively. It may be reasonable, logical, and even supportable. But it is not falsifiable.
"None of which, makes abiogenesis a science to presently take terribly seriously, much as is the case with your anti-biogenesis theory."
Of course supporting evidence would take precedence over all the rounds of debate. But abiogenesis does not make falsifiable statements.
"Except that the biogenesis theory might have tangible odds of producing evidence."
I agree that IF abiogenesis has ever happened it will probably be supportable and observable.
"The theory that biogenesis could not ever occur by any means whatsoever will never produce reasonable evidence, because 'any means whatsoever' is an infinite set."
Here you fall into the same logical fallacy as so many others. You do not test for or falsify the negation of a hypothesis. You look for support. You remain open to falsification.
The proposition is that intelligence is the mechanism by which life can form. The first task is to verify that life can form this way. All hypotheses, theories and laws are tentative to some degree or another. None require testing infinite possibilities to be considered verifiable and falsifiable.