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 ...
"So to try to explain something that happened before it existed is silly in the extreme.
But the creation of the first living cell is the beginning of the evolutionary process, a process that evolution cannot explain.
I believe what Southack is asking is why can't evolution explain its own beginning that came about with the first living cell.
LOL!
Oh please. Evolution couldn't exist prior to that point?! As if you'd know.
And that's the question that you keep failing to correctly answer: How do you **know** that Evolution couldn't exist?
Also, since you can't answer it, you'll now have to resort to one of the 3 Evolutionist panic moves:
#1 attempt ridicule
#2 attack
#3 flee (or feign disinterest)
"Because evolution involves the changing of living things, and until the first imperfect replicating cell came into existence, it could not exist?
Right you are.
And how did the first living thing came about? Does evolution give an explaination for it?
Why should evolution explain something that happened before it existed? Evolution could not happen, until after that first cell came into being.
This is science, not religion.
Occam's razor applies here, evolution did not exist before that cell existed, therefore trying to explain how that cell came into existence is a waste.
There is a separate theory that attempts to explain it, and that is called abiogenesis.
The KISS principle applies in science. whether the creationists like it or not.
I should have learned my lesson by now, but I am still always amazed at how rigidly evolutionists stick to their talking points regardless of what the original article under discussion says. Do they even read the article? If they did, they should realize that most of their talking points are already refuted right there.
FYI, one of the main points of the article is that any purely naturalistic theory of abiogenesis is necessarily unscientific according to Karl Popper's "falsifiability" criterion, which is widely touted by evolutionists.
It is impossible to prove that the first living cell could not have formed by random chance, because even the most unlikely events are possible in the strictest sense. That means that the modern notion of abiogenesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. But evolution depends on abiogenesis because it couldn't start until the first living cell existed. That means that the theory of evolution is based on an unscientific foundation.
The ultimate issue here is whether the development of life required intelligent design. If you cannot rule out ID to get the first living cell, how can you rule it out for everything thereafter? You can't. You can fool yourself into thinking you can, but in reality you can't.
Because there were no living things that existed to evolve. Pretty simple, I am sorry that this simplicity escapes you.
Where is it proven that one prohibits the other?
Round and round we go.
Circular logic at it's best, you've got it down pat RussP.
...And yet, that didn't stop inanimate matter from evolving into the first living cell...
Oh I did keep my question simple. You just did not understand it. Mind you, I said you did not understand it, NOT you did not understand ME.
I see that you have the circular logic down pat as well.
This has been fun, but your assertions are fallacies.
Evolution does not claim to know what happened before the first self imperfect replicating cell came into being.
This is just a fact.
Abiogenesis is what you are attempting to fight.
I am sorry that you don't like science, but that is just the way it is.
Have a nice night.
Bears repeating. "Evolutionary science" is an oxymoron, and those who arrogantly insist that Darwinism is scientific are frauds.
That was chemistry, not evolution.
I tried to keep that simple, I hope it didn't go over your head.
What evidence (not supposition) makes you *know* that to be the case? Inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell, and you're making excuses for why Evolution doesn't explain it.
ROFLMAO!
Not excuses, I am stating facts.
Sorry that the facts don't jive with your fantasies.
Good night.
You simply don't know the difference between suppositions and evidence in hand.
"RussP, I did what you asked. I read the article with an open mind. But it was obviously not written in such a spirit of fair play - confusing evolution and abiogenesis reveals either gross ignorance of science or a dishonest attempt to obfuscate. Neither option is particularly flattering to the author of this article."
Well, thanks for reading the article, but if you think I "confused evolution and abiogenesis," then you clearly didn't understand it.
What I claimed is that evolution *depends* on abiogenesis. Do you deny that? If you do, then I think you are clueless. The TOE itself makes it clear that evolution started with the first living cell. If that first living cell had never come to be, then evolution obviously never could have happened.
That fact is so obvious that I am truly astounded at the level of ignorance of evolutionists who try to deny it.
"Circular logic at it's best, you've got it down pat RussP."
But no mention of what is "circular" about my logic. Do you think it isn't obvious that you're firing blanks?
Now *there's* an intelligent reply! I guess you think you really nailed me with that one, eh.
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.