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 ...
Incorrect. The mechanism for abiogenesis is unknown, ergo we can't rule out ToE applying to said mechanism.
You'll have noticed I didn't actually bite? I didn't even bare my fangs...
Argument from authority is only a fallacy if the authority is unspecified or is not recognized as an authoritiy in the field specified by the argument. Using a quote from Ernst Mayr in an argument about black holes would be an appeal to authority. Using a quote from Stephen Hawking would not.
What you just said agrees very well with what I said in another thread here.
As Quark2005 says, "Confidence comes from consilience."
I say, "Great minds think alike...and so do ours." :-)
Cheers!
"Russ, it would help if you actually understood what the theory of evolution does and does not cover--evolution, as a theory in the scientific sense, does not propose to answer the question of how cells came to be, as there is precious little information available to support an answer, and therefore insufficient evidence to form a theory (there are several hypotheses; however, the jump from hypothesis to theory is a significant one in science)."
Yes, and it would help if you would read what I write before you reply. I understand full well that evolution does not "cover" abiogenesis. I never said or implied in any way that it did. But, for the 99th time, evolution could not have occurred if abiogenesis had not occurred. In that sense, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis. That is just common sense.
Quick answer: no.
Why?
That makes him a "creationist" of some sort, doesn't it.
No, that doesn't make him a believer in a literal 6-day creation as specified in the Bibuhl. It appears that you misunderstand what is being discussed here. Again.
Your answer should have been yes.
Just because you feel that Louie did NOT beleieve the 6 day thingy, he could still be an older Earth 'creationist'; could he not?
There are those around here on FR.
Why?
Because it SEEMS to you that a shorter path would be more efficient? Therefore GOD did NOT do it that way?
(You guys need to talk!)
They don't call it - gettin' lucky - fer nothin'!! ;^)
;^)
Or Fritos® Chili Cheese corn chips, which I am munching while typing:
a before breakfast snack.
I thought he died!?
It's fairly obvious why you and Dimensio would want to mischaracterize anyone who points out that the 'a priori' assumptions and definitions underlying 'science' are inadequate for resolving the supernatural vs natural creation question.
It strikes at the heart of the supposition that only 'science' can answer that question when, in fact, it is totally inadequate to do so and is the narrow-minded perspective *by definition*.
Not a point that most evos want presented.
Are you sure its not panentheism?
Don't take my word for it - it comes directly from the mouth of Michael Behe, the leading proponent of ID. He ought to know.
That answers the original question of the thread - if you're not willing to consider astrology to be scientific, you can't consider ID to be scientific.
What you want to call them is irrelevant. All scientific theories (and science in general) have presuppositions, or suppositions, or initial conditions, or givens, or again, whatever you want to call them.
If you try to claim of ANY scientific theory that it doesn't have such initial conditions or "suppositions" then you're either being naive or dishonest.
All of those conditions are possible in an inanimate environment (e.g. software programs), for one thing
Well, yeah, but this is an exceedingly trivial observation in that certainly one can simulate anything with a computer program. However computer programs don't normally, as part of their inherent nature, reproduce, vary, die, etc.
you've basically made them all up since they aren't itemized in any peer-reviewed paper on ToE, anyway
I didn't "make them up". Although there was little in the way of a peer review system in place at the time, Darwin himself summarized the initial conditions I listed in the conclusion to The Origin:
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
I suppose in the universe where Southack decides how scientific theories work, that could be true, but in this universe abiogenesis ia not part of the TOE because the TOE doesn't deal with the origin of life. That's the way the TOE is defined. If you want to argue that scientists who work with a given theory aren't allowed to define the theory, go ahead, but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you.
In the meantime, here's another analogy: your statement is like saying, "The mechanism for (fill in the blank) is unknown, ergo we can't rule out ToE applying to said mechanism." Why limit your objection to mere biology?
Sure you can!
Again to correct you - evolution depends on the first living organism, it does not depend on a specific origin of that organism. Evolution no more depends on abiogenesis (in whatever form you take it) than it does on seeding from space, or the whims of a god.
Your argument depends on abiogenesis being part of evolution, but given that, your argument is based on a false premise.
"That is just common sense.
Common to whom? Sensible in what context?
Not according to the foremost authorities on ID.
Do you think that you know more about ID than Dr. Behe?
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.