Posted on 10/01/2006 4:18:53 PM PDT by RussP
----cut----
The notion that Intelligent Design theory is fundamentally "unscientific" is based on the philosophy originated by Karl Popper (1902-1994), who postulated a set of rules for science known as "Falsificationism." The main idea is that a hypothesis or theory does not qualify as "scientific" unless it is "falsifiable" (which is independent of whether it is actually "true" or "false"). Popper is revered by evolutionists, but certainly even they would agree that we should not blindly accept his word as revealed truth. So let us consider some of the implications of his "falsifiability" criterion.
----cut----
The ultimate irony here is that, given Popper's definition of science, the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution itself is based on an "unscientific" foundation. How did the first living cell come to be? If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance. Mathematicians and physicists have argued (and claim to have proved) that the simplest conceivable living cell is far too complex to have come together by random chance, but evolutionists always reply that, given enough time and space, "anything" can happen. In this case, the evolutionists are correct: proving that the first cell could not have formed by random chance is impossible. But that is just another way of saying that any purely naturalistic theory of abiogenesis is unfalsifiable, hence "unscientific" according to Popper's falsifiability criterion. [When cornered with this undeniable fact, evolutionists usually claim that abiogenesis is "separate" from evolution. But that's not quite true: evolution depends on abiogenesis. Evolution obviously could not have occurred if the first living cell had never come into existence!]
----cut----
(Excerpt) Read more at russp.org ...
Because it doesn't have to or need to.
Occams razor, you put in what you need, and no more then that, to explain a phenomena.
Evolution is a theory of living things, it does not need nor want to explain how those living things came to be.
The first living imperfect self replicating cell came along, and evolution began. Evolution cannot begin, until that first imperfect replicator began, therefore, to try and explain how that imperfect replicator came into existence, is silly, evolution does not know, and does not need to know.
It began after that first cell was created, came into existence, or whatever. Evolution does not care, evolution could not exist before that first cell appeared, therefore it doesn't care what happened or didn't happen before that.
"Because that is not what The Theory of Evolution is." - Freedumb2003
That's not an answer. You made the claim that there was a predicate system, yet you can't explain why you know that to be true.
You certainly can't explain why ToE fails to explain why inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell, either.
"Because it doesn't have to or need to." - Jaguarbhzrd
That's not an answer to the question. It's not even right, and it certainly doesn't explain why ToE doesn't cover the first instance of Evolution.
Your original post was: "How can you hope to explain how systems are redesigning themselves if you can't first explain how they designed themselves?"
I should have just called your strawman for what it was. But when I tried to explain to you that if there were such things as predicate systems (although I am pretty sure they were there), they don't matter.
Your endless loop notwithstanding, that is the final answer. It doesn't matter, nor is it a logical or a scientific requirement that TToE define what created "life."
There. That should keep you from further descent.
How long do my explanations need to be to you, and why did you cut the rest of it?
Evolution did not exist before the first imperfect replicating cell existed, therefore it does not and cannot explain what happened before that. Because it did not exist yet.
Evolution cannot happen, unless there is an imperfect replicating living cell. So to try to explain something that happened before it existed is silly in the extreme.
Crevo brickbats + low volume = wtf?
Thanks for the ping!
"How do you *know* there are two processes, much less that they are "completely different?"
Me thinks there is/was only a single process.
Randomness process does not create intelligence; only intelligence creates intelligence.
See, what did I say? Some people just do not have a sense of humor, I am sorry that I now need to add you to the list.
"Why can't Evolution explain why inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell?
Because it can't. it doesn't fit in with the "theory." At best it attempts to explain intermediary processes.
It's not a "strawman." A strawman is an argument easily knocked down. Heck, you can't even answer the question, much less knock it down.
You lose. Game over.
How do you know that to be true?
The question has been answered, you just don't like the answer.
It's actually rather typical, you don't like science to be what it is, so you attempt to change the definition of it.
Sorry, science is not going to change because it might hurt your religious sensibilities.
"It began after that first cell was created, came into existence, or whatever. Evolution does not care, evolution could not exist before that first cell appeared, therefore it doesn't care what happened or didn't happen before that.
If evolution can't explain its beginnings, I doubt it can explain its subsequent processes.
Oh please. The question hasn't been answered. It's been responded to, but that's not even close to being the same as being answered.
You'll have to know the difference between mere "response" from that of "correct answer" if you want to proceed with any sense of intelligence.
Excuse me?
Because evolution involves the changing of living things, and until the first imperfect replicating cell came into existence, it could not exist?
Pretty simple logic, is logic somehow foreign to your thinking processes?
Post #117 does not factually support your claim in post #113.
Well, you answered that question.
Logic is indeed foreign to your thinking.
Thank you for clarifying that, I can now put you in the "do not take seriously" category.
Check
As I said, logic is indeed foreign to you, have a nice life.
LOL, sad, very sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.