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 ...
Nonsense, it's not trivial. And computer viri do it every day, inherent in their nature and environment.
Incorrect. How ToE is defined/intended matters less to its boundaries than do its actual borders, and one of those borders is the mechanism for inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell.
You keep asserting this, but you've yet to demonstrate that anyone other than you and some others who don't like the TOE think it has any bearing on the theory. How is it you are the one who defines "the borders" of the TOE?
Borders in science exist irrespective of our efforts to define them.
Okay. So why not knock off now?
"Again to correct you - evolution depends on the first living organism,"
Bingo! Give that man a cigar. Now, how is that "correcting" me, when that is exactly what I said?
The development or formation of the first living organism is known as "abiogenesis." Look it up. If you don't like the definition, don't complain to me.
The point here is whether the development or formation of the first living cell can be explained without resort to intelligent design. If it cannot, then what is the point of insisting that the ensuing evolution that DEPENDED on it *can* be explained without resort to ID? Would you insist that ID is impossible after some point in time but not before?
By the way, please don't confuse yourself with the idea that the first living cell could have come from space. That does not answer the question of its ultimate origin. It just pushes it to another planet.
Because Evolutionists wish to pretend that ToE can't apply to first life (probably because they know that they'll always lose said debate at that point).
Your objection that the TOE doesn't cover material it doesn't pretend to cover is noted.
Your protest note is noted.
Me thinks thou doth protest too much, in fact.
How do you know this?
I've seen no evidence to the contrary. And you?
Details, please?
I *Love* funny computer bugs ;-)
Cheers!
You answered succinctly in a line or two what I took an entire novel
to write.
Someone on one of these threads brought up Strunk and White (aka The Elements of Style). In that classic work, they constantly say : "Omit Needless Words!"
Methinks I should heed their advice.
Full Disclosure: White also wrote Charlotte's Web.
Cheers!
That is a mere hyposthesis stated as a fact.
It's not a hypothesis, it's a theory. Read the list of definitions Coyoteman posts.
I was stating the theory. Do you really need an insertion of "The theory states," to begin each sentence, much as Bin Laden lards in "Allah's name be praised" every fifth word?
Even with a extra s, it is not a theory -- merely a very weak form of theory, a hypo-theory, also called a hypothesis. (Coyoteman is not Webster's, btw.)
I 'know' something about astrology.
That's what we WERE talking about; right?
;^)
I 'know' something about astrology.
That's what we WERE talking about; right?
In a way. But only insofar as it relates to Intelligent Design and the central point of this thread.
The major proponent of ID, Professor Michael Behe, admitted under oath that astrology is every bit as scientific as ID. You recognize, and rightly so, that astrology is not scientific at all.
Therefore, either:
Which is it?
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.