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 ...
I guess you've been told. That arch didn't get there without an arch builder.
That isn't true. All that shows is that a particular sequence of evolutionary steps can occur, it does nothing to falsify ID for any other case. The theory, or all its subtheories if it is a complex theory, needs to be generally falsifiable.
Contrary to your example, ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive so proving one does not falsify the other.
Your falsification criterion does not address the potential for a designer to have produced a design that appears evolved.
"Saying that is too much work or will take too long is avoiding the issue. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable, then perhaps the production of flagella by evolution is an article of faith.
Again, the potential falsifiability of ID says nothing about the falsifiability, or the validity, of the SToE.
We cannot falsify ID because there are no criteria for its falsifiability, not because Evolution is incorrect. They aren't linked at this level.
>Evolution IS an example of an "intelligent design" path.
Not according to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution. This is a common confusion, particularly among Catholics, for example. The NDT specifically rules out the *need* for *any* intelligence. So when the Pope and others proclaim that evolution is God's mechanism of creation, they are profoundly confused
I don't think most people get it. The NDT doesn't just say that "very little" intelligent design was involved in evolution. It says that 0.0 intelligent design was involved. That's why evolutionists get get so nasty about ID. Do you get it now?
Sorry, but you are wrong. Pasteur lived well after Darwin's theory was widely known, and he rejected it in no uncertain terms. And he is widely recognized as one of the greatest, if not *the* greatest biologist to ever live.
Ditto for Kelvin, except he was a physicist. Many other great scientists could also be named who lived after Darwin's time. Please educate yourself, and quit letting evolutionists mislead you.
Placemarker
Ramen.
Wha? "Spirited discussion?" Moi? How DARE you question my niceosity!
Pastuer did not reject evolution, good grief, where do you people come up with such nonsense?
He was suspicious of it, because Darwin had not used experimentation to come up with the theory, he used observation, which Pasteur thought needed to be followed up with experimentation.
But, he did not reject it.
I'm thinking spaghetti white clam sauce again, but I've been in a rut lately.
You want Pasteur-like experimentation on evolution? Here's one he would love.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634489/posts
Pasteur was a devout Christian who studied the Bible. He may have even been a creationist. He disproved the idea of "spontaneous generation," a prevailing evolutionist notion of his time. I think it is fairly safe to say that he rejected evolution. He certainly did not "accept" it, so by definition he "rejected" it.
Purely naturalistic abiogenesis with no ID is essentially the modern day, scaled back version of spontaneous generation. But since it involved just one living cell somewhere in the universe billions of years ago, it is impossible to disprove. In other words, it is "unfalsifiable."
At least "spontaneous generation" was falsifiable, so Pasteur could falsify it.
That's just not the case. Pasteur, at least so far as anyone has been able to show, never addressed the issue of evolution directly post-Darwin, in terms "uncertain" of otherwise.
If you disagree then let's have the quote. It isn't there. For instance Answers In Genesis' page on Pastuer has no quote or testimony. It can only claim that Pasteur oppposed Darwin because he opposed spontaneous generation:
Pasteur’s work should have dealt the death blow to the idea of spontaneous generation. But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution. Despite all the efforts of evolutionary scientists, not one observable case of spontaneous generation has ever been found. Pasteur’s findings conflicted with the idea of spontaneous generation (as do all scientific results since). Consequently, Louis Pasteur was a strong opponent of Darwin’s theory.
So, if he was a devout christian, and studied the bible, he would have rejected evolution?
What an interesting supposition.
Too bad it is wrong.
The only Christians that reject evolution are fundamentalists, who are a small minority of Christians in the world.
It is sad that they make up such a large portion of the Conservative movement, because they will hold us back for another 30 years if they keep on with their nonsense, oh, that's right, you can't be conservative, unless you're a creationist, right?
for further perusal you might want to try..... Evolution 101 OR The Pain
And stop trying to block progress.....The scientists you quote were contemporaries of Darwin and caught up in their own egos...you ignorance on the other hand is self made and fostered by clinging to a faulty belief system and has no basis in science or in facts of any kind.
You should make some attempt to understand the Theory of Evolution before you criticize it. Let us know when you get there.
Science needs evidence. The evidence of the beginning of life was immediately eaten. That's what life does. So, any number of hypotheses may be posited and all have a finite probability of being correct, but science will never prove which are the true hypotheses since the evidence, and the proof therefore, was eaten.
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.