Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?

Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

[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----

[Elsie]

So you accept the Theory of Evolution, then. No...

MY 'id' is the creator, GOD; Jesus=GOD in the flesh. HE does things real fast and accurate. No need for 'chance' and 'time' to function.

[highball]

Ah, so you don't actually think Intelligent Design is correct.

Not surprising, I guess. Most people who adopt ID abandon it once they learn it has some scientific foundation.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Ouch, that had to hurt.

[bvw]

While you tried to expand the limited intellectual horizons the cultish insistance on the HoE imposes upon a mind, you are still caught in the same traps of pseudo-science which Popper identified with Marxist Economics. Just as a HoE cultist confidently insists that HoE explains or predicts with any and all observations of biological (or geological, or cosmological) systems, a Marxist would so claim that Marxist "Theory" explained or predicted any observation of economic (or indeed, social) systems.

The words you used, "because the TOE has been confirmed by every piece of evidence ever presented" could have, and probably were at some point spoken by a Marxist as "Marxist *Theory* has been confirmed by every piece of evidence ever presented." And such a claim of univerisal confirmations is exactly the point of Popper's mark No. 7 (in the Popper citation above). And thus, it is the measure by which a proper Popper proponent debunks HoE.

[bvw]

Not flight nor fright keeps me from further responding to the impatient brute.

[Elsie]

Ah, so you don't actually think Intelligent Design is correct.

Huh?

Please... make up my mind for me; I'm SO confused.

[highball]

Words mean things, Elsie. If you deny the basic foundations of ID, how can you claim that ID is right? You cannot simultaneously argue the two.

What would you say to someone who claims to be a Catholic but rejects transubstantiation or Papal infallibility?

[Jaguarbhzrd]

Then obviously you have nothing to base your opinion on.

Thank you for that confirmation.

Now go play on a thread that has nothing to do with science, because you haven't any idea when it comes to science, and we know that now.

Have fun.

[Gumlegs]

Very nice hermetically sealed opinion you have, confirming my observation that you either don't understand Popper, the TOE, or both.

One gets the distinct impression that you're parroting someone dishonestly trying to confect without the benefit of anything resembling a fact an objection to the TOE. Darwin himself proposed possible disproofs of the theory, none of which has been demonstrated. That you ignore that in favor of vague smears about Marxism is quite telling.

Once again, your objection that the TOE hasn't yet been falsified is an objection to every theory in science.

But why not cut to the chase and present some evidence that would discredit the TOE?

Come on, edify us. Is that a Precambrian rabbit fossil in your pocket or are you part of the World Wide Marxist Conspiracy yourself?

[cornelis]

I object to the word *assumption* here.

Induction and assumptions are compatible.