Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; creationism; evolution; falsifiability; idiocy; idjunkscience; ignorance; intelligentdesign; science; seti
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-410 next last
To: FairWitness
Not exactly. That would mean that one hypothesis put forward by intelligent design has been falsified.

Intelligent Design fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance. It suggests that if no known evolutionary processes can produce a biological feature then evolution cannot produce such a feature and, as such, only a "designer" could have caused that feature to exist. This presumes perfect knowledge of biology, and also fails to address the mechanism(s) of the alleged designer. It is not an explanation derived from evidence, it is conjecture resulting from ignorance. This is not how science operates.
21 posted on 10/01/2006 4:43:25 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RussP

See above from Dimensio.

BTW, I am not the one confused, look in a mirror, and you will see the one that is confused.


22 posted on 10/01/2006 4:44:05 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"The "first living cell" need not have come about through abiogenesis."

Incorrect. Abiogenesis means that you get a living cell from purely inanimate matter.

The first cell, by definition, had to come from purely inanimate matter. There was no animated life prior to that first cell. Thus, the first cell was from abiogenesis. QED.

23 posted on 10/01/2006 4:46:46 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
"TOE does not depend on abiogenesis."

TOE is useless if it can't explain how life evolved from inanimate matter.

24 posted on 10/01/2006 4:47:41 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Yes, just as archeology is usless without astronomy.

You guys really like that strawman argument.


25 posted on 10/01/2006 4:48:49 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

You completely missed the point of the article, didn't you. Well, I can't say I'm surprised. But I *would* be surprised if you even read it.

"Finally, the theory of evolution is independent of the means by which the first life form(s) came to exist."

But if you would stop and think for a minute, you would quickly realize that modern abiogenesis is nothing more than a refinement of the old, discarded idea "spontaneous generation," which earlier evolutionists pushed and Pasteur repeatedly rejected. Modern evolutionists have simply pushed the origin of evolution farther and farther out to make it even more unfalsifiable.

Also, I am continually amazed at the mental acrobatics that people like you are capable of. You believe that evolution *started* with the first living cell, yet you think that the origin of that cell is completely isolated and separated from the evolution that followed it!

The challenge is to reach people like you through reason. I'm not sure it's possible.


26 posted on 10/01/2006 4:49:09 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Intelligent Design fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance. It suggests that if no known evolutionary processes can produce a biological feature then evolution cannot produce such a feature and, as such, only a "designer" could have caused that feature to exist. This presumes perfect knowledge of biology, and also fails to address the mechanism(s) of the alleged designer.

What it says, in my professional opinion, is that evolution is still lacking understanding of some of the most important mecanisms needed to explain complicated biological systems. It would be helpful if the folks who are so sure that natural processes can explain everything we see in the biological world (which includes me) had the humility to admit that.

27 posted on 10/01/2006 4:50:52 PM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
[ *CREVO FLYING BRICK-BAT PING LIST* ]

OUCH!... now stop that..

ID is Agnostic Creativism.. is that an oxy moron?..
No matter... the Chemical SoupNazis will not like it as an answer for orgins..

I know I know.. NO SOUP FOR ME TODAY...

28 posted on 10/01/2006 4:51:27 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
What it says, in my professional opinion, is that evolution is still lacking understanding of some of the most important mecanisms needed to explain complicated biological systems.

Please offer examples.
29 posted on 10/01/2006 4:53:31 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

"Intelligent Design fails as science because it is ultimately an appeal to ignorance."

If Intelligent Design is bad science, it is an even more dreadful theology.


30 posted on 10/01/2006 4:53:36 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I urge you to read a book called "A Different Universe" by Robert Laughlin, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics. In it, he says exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The evolutionist tendency to "explain" the complexity of life by saying "evolution did it" is not a real explanation but merely an appeal to ignorance. It doesn't promote further inquiry; it is an attempt to stop further inquiry.


31 posted on 10/01/2006 4:55:00 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RussP

Perhaps if you used a real logical, factual argument, perhaps you would, but since you seem to enjoy tilting at windmills and strawman arguments, getting your "reasonable" responses will be quite literally impossible.


32 posted on 10/01/2006 4:55:37 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RussP
If ID has made a few predictions along the lines of "Evolution has no scenario by which [fill-in-the-blank] may be produced," such is falsified whenever such an evolutionary scenario is discussed. One such falsification seems to have occurred in 1939, well before Behe published.

Review: "Darwin's Black Box, The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe.

For one, Behe thought he had invented Irreducibly Complexity. On pages 203-204, he wonders if some unknown mechanism could generate I.C.-ness. He dismisses the possibility. On page 233 he compares his great discovery to those of Newton, Einstein, Pasteur and Darwin. He should instead have compared himself to Nobel Prize winner H. J. Muller [3], who invented irreducible complexity in 1939. Muller argued in some detail that evolution would routinely cause such systems. That conclusion is today a common wisdom of evolutionary biology. Behe didn't rebut Muller's argument because he didn't even know it existed. He says on page 187 that evolution always progresses by addition, but any evolutionist knows that it often happens by subtraction.
The thing in question here is the very feature of irreducible complexity itself, a real cornerstone of ID.
33 posted on 10/01/2006 4:56:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
But if you would stop and think for a minute, you would quickly realize that modern abiogenesis is nothing more than a refinement of the old, discarded idea "spontaneous generation," which earlier evolutionists pushed and Pasteur repeatedly rejected.

Pasteur demonstrated that maggots do not spontaneously arise from rotting meat. His experiments did not demontrate that life can ever emerge through natural processes.

Modern evolutionists have simply pushed the origin of evolution farther and farther out to make it even more unfalsifiable.

Incorrect. The mechanisms of evolution require the existence of life. As such, those mechanisms cannot explain a process that involves at least one step where life does not exist. The mechanisms of evolution have never been used to explain the ultimate origin of life.

You believe that evolution *started* with the first living cell, yet you think that the origin of that cell is completely isolated and separated from the evolution that followed it!

Evolution occurs as a result of imperfect replication combined with selective reproductive pressures. There are no 'mental acrobatics' in understanding that a process dependent upon the existence of life does not occur when no life is present.
34 posted on 10/01/2006 4:57:02 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RussP

I'll be out of this for a while, folks. I'm going to pump some iron so I can look a bit more like a gorilla (with a bit less hair, I hope)!


35 posted on 10/01/2006 4:58:05 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
So you are claiming that evolution is possible without abiogenesis? So evolution could have occurred without the first living cell? With all due respect, I think you are profoundly confused.

So, Astronomy is invalid if we can't explain the origins of the Universe?

Actually, I suppose that is true of all science. None of it is "possible withough the first" atom.

To maybe take your "argument" into something easier (I try to be kind): Can you not drive a car if you don't know how one is built? It is not possible to drive one if it isn't built.

Do you see how your strawman is on fire and running down the road like Frosty screaming "take the hat off!! take the hat off!!"?

36 posted on 10/01/2006 4:58:57 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Southack
TOE is useless if it can't explain how life evolved from inanimate matter.

Why?

37 posted on 10/01/2006 4:59:37 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RussP
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.

When your argument is based on an unsupported assertion, your argument becomes an unsupported assertion.

...

I challenge evolutionists to read the article and actually think rather than simply regurgitating the standard evolutionist talking points and ad hominem insults.

Where did this "think" talking point come from? It is a new buillt-in ad hominem that comes out of the CR/IDer community. To "think" is NOT to get drunk and repeat sophomoric drivel in the guise of "advanced thought." To "think" (at least for our purposes) is to take supported facts and analyzes and extend them by logic, data and further analysis. Adding in false "facts" (most scientists say...) or "analysis" (it MUST be so), isn't "thinking" it is "BSing."

As I have pointed out, what group of people prize "thinking" over "logic?"

38 posted on 10/01/2006 5:08:31 PM PDT by freedumb2003 ("Critical Thinking"="I don't understand it so it must be wrong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Why not?


39 posted on 10/01/2006 5:12:17 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RussP
I'll bet you think you win a debate by shouting louder than the other guy.

LOL!!! Cool!!! I win!!! LOL!!!

Feel free to go back to making stupid comments now...

40 posted on 10/01/2006 5:13:01 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-410 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson