Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

[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----

[RussP]

"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?

[Dimensio]

If evolution can't explain its beginnings, I doubt it can explain its subsequent processes.

The "beginning" of evolution is subsequent to the first event of reproductive pressures acting upon a population of imperfect replicators. Its mechanisms do not attempt to describe the events leading up to this first occurence. It is not logical to claim that evolution can explain a known process merely because it does not explain events leading up to the first instance of that process.

[Dimensio]

It's not even right, and it certainly doesn't explain why ToE doesn't cover the first instance of Evolution.

This is a strawman. No one has claimed that the theory of evolution does not "cover the first instance of Evolution".

[RussP]

"Wow! You've demonstrated that you haven't learned a single thing since the last time you posted this ignorance-inspired drivel - welcome to Trollville, RussP."

And you obviously still haven't read the article, have you. If you have, and you disagree with something, then why are you apparently incapable of debating it rationally?

[Southack]

"This is a strawman. No one has claimed that the theory of evolution does not "cover the first instance of Evolution"."

Incorrect. Jaguarbhzrd (above, this thread) and others are claiming that Evolution does not explain how inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell.

[Dimensio]

I believe what Southack is asking is why can't evolution explain its own beginning that came about with the first living cell.

The mechanism of evolution requires the existence of at least one entitiy capable of imperfect replication. How can the process of evolution explain the emergence of the first imperfect replicator(s) when there exist no imperfect replicators during at least one step of this emergence?

[RussP]

"The supporters of Intelligent Design attack "Darwinism" yet "Darwinism" is Intelligent Design."

I'll bet that's news to most Darwinists!

[mugs99]

I'll bet that's news to most Darwinists!

What Darwinists?
.

[Dimensio]

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.

Who has referred to abiogenesis as a "theory"? Moreover, why did you initially attack the theory of evolution when you now admit that you were criticizing the non-falsifiability of the abiogenesis hypothesis, and not the theory of evolution?

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.

You are wrong. The theory of evolution is not dependent upon the means by which the first imperfect replicator(s) came to exist.

If you cannot rule out ID to get the first living cell, how can you rule it out for everything thereafter?

I am aware of no means by which ID can be "ruled out". This is because ID is an unfalsifiable and untestable assertion and, as such, is inherently worthless.

[RussP]

"False dichotomy. The "first living cell" need not have come about through abiogenesis."

OK, I'll bite. How else could it have come about?

[Southack]

"The "beginning" of evolution is subsequent to the first event of reproductive pressures acting upon a population of imperfect replicators. Its mechanisms do not attempt to describe the events leading up to this first occurence."

That's supposition. If you don't know the mechanism for how inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell, then you can't make absolute statements about said mechanism.

And that leaves you with supposition.

[Al Simmons]

You know, I would be willing to bet that, were we to do a survey, we'd find that the average IQ of the 'evolutionist' posters to this thread exceeded that of the 'creationist' posters by 10-15 points.

Given WHO is espousing 'Intelligent Design', there's some irony there somewhere....or do y'all disagree with my premise.....????

Maybe we can just 'compare degrees' to see whether my supposition above is accurate....

[Dimensio]

OK, I'll bite. How else could it have come about?

Divine intervention. Aliens -- interplanetary, intergalactic, or interdimensional -- seeded the earth either intentionally or unintentionally. Time travelling humans from the future seeded this planet's past.

[Al Simmons]

should have ended the last post thusly: *DUCKING*

[Southack]

"Divine intervention. Aliens -- interplanetary, intergalactic, or interdimensional -- seeded the earth either intentionally or unintentionally. Time travelling humans from the future seeded this planet's past."

Is there no irony in an Evolutionist like yourself spouting off such explanations?!

[Dimensio]

If you don't know the mechanism for how inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell, then you can't make absolute statements about said mechanism.

I made no statement regarding any specific mechanism by which the first living cell came to exist. What, exactly, am I supposing?

[Dimensio]

Is there no irony in an Evolutionist like yourself spouting off such explanations?!

Where, exactly, do you believe the irony lies?

[RussP]

Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of divine intervention, then I don't understand why you reject ID so vociferously. As for pansperpmia (sp?), that simply pushes abiogenesis back to some other planet.

[Southack]

"Its mechanisms do not attempt to describe the events leading up to this first occurence."

How would you know?

[Dimensio]

Well, if you are willing to accept the possibility of divine intervention, then I don't understand why you reject ID so vociferously.

I reject ID as a scientific claim. I have never claimed to know it to be false.