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 ...
My point stands. Coyoteman, while indeed not Webster's (not that C ever claimed to be), works in the field itself, and thus has a more precise and pertinent definition. The Theory of Evolution is called "The Theory of Evolution" because science recognizes it as a theory. Science also recognizes conjectures, for instance.
But if you want to write up a counter-argument and convince the scientists that they're wrong and you're right, go right ahead. As I'm sure any scientist will readily admit, it won't be the first time science is wrong.
Hey! I resemble that remark! ;>)
Well, if professional wrestling can be entertaining, why not the CREVO threads?
People do post very enlightening stuff, but no one is gonna change anyone else's mind.
So we might as well add some fun to the serious posts - think of it as "CREVO Professional Wrestling"....
Creationist trying to redefine evolution, so they can attempt to fight it, placemarker.
You got it right the second time. Thanks for the ping. Interesting thoughts for sure.
"When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?"While I do not agree that Popper's criteria totally define scientific theory -- they are very serviceable. Yet holding his ruler of seven marks up to the Hypothesis of Evolution, leads one to classify HoE as a most tentative and even suspicious theory of science, on a par with Marxist Economics, Freudian Psychology, and even -- for example with Coyoteman's fossils -- a mass of empirical data to which any number of competing frameworks of of understanding can be applied, none demonstrating to be any more scientific (Popper-wise) than the other.I knew [in 1919], the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudoscience—or from "metaphysics"—by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method — that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation — on horoscopes and on biographies.
[Talking about Marxism and Freudian Pschology] The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation — which revealed the class bias of the paper — and especially of course what the paper did not say.
[Comparing with Einstein's theories, the observation that the light of distant stars is bent around massive objects.] Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.[1] This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
Okay ... you don't understand either the TOE, or what Popper is saying, or both.
Yes, I predicted that kind of response, nice to see verification. Please refer to Popper's Mark No. 7 by the way for my response. He pretty much covers the problem there.
He's right, you do not understand evolution, it holds up to Poppers definitions quite nicely, and always has.
Right-o, oh cultist thou, No. 7's for you too. (Not that the others don't also comb out the dandruff of HoE from the hair of science as well.)
A thought experiment demonstrates. With the Principal's permission take a tour of your local K-6 after school lets out. Observe the natural progression of physical artifacts from one room to another. Evolution in front of your eyes!
Really, then name me the evidence that has disproven the TOE.
Go ahead, I'll wait. LOL
Real scientific evidence please, not some fantasy of yours or your church.
Thank you
I really have to hear this.
Tell me, what will that show?
And why does it show it?
Jeesh, YOU really don't get Popper, do you? HoE has shown itself to be the archtype of Popper's falsification chimera. HoE is not science (per Popper's benchmarks of scientific thoeries) becuase there no experimental result that might disprove it! As the cult as demonstrated in the last hundred or so years -- every possible result that might disprove it can be argued away, by binding all possible results as possible for some evolutionary reason.
Really, there is no way to falsify the TOE?
Is that what you are claiming?
Some minds can't handle analogy and extrapolation -- I think I presented enough upon which to build the thought experiment in that post. My experience on these threads is that the typical cultist has -- well, a *firm* grasp of the facts as those facts ought damn well to be. The mind of a great clerk or librarian -- a detail specialist. Outside the framed bounds -- they are lost, and obvilious.
Is that really what you asked, or did you ask something else entirely?
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.