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 am asking what you think such an experiment would prove?
So far I have been unimpressed, a lot of blather but no substance.
So, you have 2 things to now answer on the table.
1st, are you saying that it is impossible to falsify the TOE?
and 2nd, what such an experiment, in your mind, is expected to prove? or disprove, as the case may be?
A precisely accurate description of the HoE. Thanks!
I am still waiting for a response with some actual substance to it.
I see you making claims, that the TOE does not do well against Poppers definition, but I have yet to hear any evidence to prove it.
I have heard your opinion, and your opinion is worth as much as I paid for it, nothing.
So, give me some substance.
Again, you have yet to answer my 2 questions.
Are you claiming that the TOE cannot be falsified?
and what do you think such an experiment would show?
Still waiting patiently for you to give some substance.
(Just to employ a sentence with a analogical flood of parts by way of appealing to subconscious artistic senses of paralellism and structure in addition to the higher and conscious senses of reason and logic which I also addressed very well, thank you.)
Oh, and btw, I think the timestamps of your responses give other indication of your patience than that which you have claimed.
I just wait for you to respond, you respond, but do not give me the answers that I am waiting for.
You give me blather, not substance.
If this is your usual thing, then I'll just write you off as another cultist.
Otherwise, I am still waiting.
Another blather with little substance.
This is rather sad, if you are going to make grand statements, you really should be able to back them up.
Oh, well, another one to write off to the cult of creationism nonsensical BS.
Well, this has been fun, but little airy claims do little to prove your points.
If you are willing or able to prove what you say, please come back and try again, if you are going to continue to respond with blather, please don't bother.
Thank you.
Congratulations on your grasp of the obvious. Just to keep the lurkers from having to scroll back up, here's your Popper reference again:
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.")For this to have any meaning in this conversation, it requires the TOE to have been "found to be false." Please post a source for this datum, preferably an article from a reputable scientific journal.
I won't be waiting.
What bvw appears to be trying to do is assert that the Theory of Evolution fails to meet falsification criteria because it hasn't been falsified. If that's not what bvw means by this:
I stated my case as well as I would like to right know, in the post where I noted that in the 100 plus years since Lewis Carroll took his photos of Huxley and Wilberforce at Oxford that we have been deluged with a Flood of reasons that every possible outcome of biology and the related sciences such as geology and cosmology is predictable as a validation of some obvious nuance of the HoE therefore HoE is seen to fail the Popper Test of Falsifiability to most competent judges, in my opinion.... is as spectacularly meaningless as it is hyperbolic.(Just to employ a sentence with a analogical flood of parts by way of appealing to subconscious artistic senses of paralellism[sic] and structure in addition to the higher and conscious senses of reason and logic which I also addressed very well, thank you.)
It seems that bvw seems to think that because the TOE has been confirmed by every piece of evidence ever presented, it has not been falsified, and therefore can't be true.
I don't know whether this is a simple mistake in understanding what "falsification" means, or an attempt to confuse the easily misled, or something else entirely, but it's just silly.
To say the TOE is incapable of falsification because it hasn't been falsified would mean that every working theory in science is wrong -- not one of them has been falsified! If a theory has been falsified, that means it's been proven false and it's discarded.
"Capable of falsification" and "falsification" are not the same thing.
That's why I kept trying to get him to tell me if he thought that it was impossible to falsify the TOE.
He wouldn't tell me.
I tried to pin him down, but he just kind of let it slip away.
In other words, he hasn't a fricking clue about that which he is speaking.
He is stabbing in the dark, and when I attempted to pin him, he fled.
Typical, but nothing less then what I expect from them.
Well stated. It works, and so far has never failed.
The excluded middle, eh? ;o)
Neither - Dr. B obviously knows very little about astrology.
Cute.
Not exactly a substitute for an answer, but cute.
You still think you know more about ID than the Discovery Institute?
Dang!
I sure hope you are wrong!
Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Did I say that I did?
Just one more quick question for you: Is it your contention that ID is correct? Or is this just "Devil's Advocate" time? Do you believe that ID is good science and rests on a solid foundation?
Okay, that was three questions, but all of a kind.
Oink in it a dab, Ed (two rum ho).
Now on to the questions...
1. ID is correct
2. I ALWAYS like to play the DA! ;^)
3. What is 'good' science?
(The 'or' and the 'and' in questions tend either to link them or exclude them from each other and therefore I give too precise answers at times. [drives my wife NUTS!] ;^)
1. ID is correct
So you accept the Theory of Evolution, then.
ID does not dispute any of the substance of the ToE, such as a common ancestor. Professor Behe has been quite clear on this point.
When you get down to the real meat of it, ID merely postulates the existence of an external force (whether a supernatural being, a space alien or some other designer) that put Darwininan evolution into action.
Thank you for your honesty.
You are welcome.
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.