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. Of course it matters how life evolved from inanimate matter. How can you hope to explain how systems are redesigning themselves if you can't first explain how they designed themselves?
To not specify upfront that the TOE is incomplete would also be unscientific, but it sometimes seems in the haste to beat creationists to a pulp, that is what happens. My attitude is it (the knock-down-drag-out fights) is not worth it (speaking only with regard to Free Republic threads, not with respect to boards of education policy - do what you need to there).
It would be more profound if we knew exactly what will be forever unknowable. Just now, I'd say it's too early to speak for forever.
Evolution is the best scientific theory, to explain the evidence that we have, this is a fact, there is no disputing that, but creationists take the statement, evolution does not have all the answers, or is incomplete, to mean that it is somehow a failure as a theory, which is complete nonsense.
You know, Thomas Brothers might get upset that you posted the Los Angeles Street Map!
;)
Human knowledge is finite. Strange how knowledge isn't passed on biologically.
Because they are completely different processes and one system des not necessarily depend on the other (system, not results).
But check back later.
How do you *know* there are two processes, much less that they are "completely different?"
Please explain both processes (read: you can't).
Umm, it was YOUR post that posited the dichotomy.
The fact is we have a good explanation of the system at hand. Your idea that we need a good explanation of the previous system (your words, not mine) is a non sequiter.
Please explain both processes (read: you can't).
Because I don't know as much about Abiogenesis as I do about TToE. But the mechanics of TToE don't require any predicate systems. They stand just fine on their own.
Now, do you want me to describe the mechanics of TToE? Because it will bore everyone on the thread to tears since they have all seen it hundreds of times before.
I should have remembered to include the heading "Metabolic Pathways" for the chart. I'm so used to the looks of this particular chart, I forgot it would not necessarily be recognized by most people. Talk about "irreducible complexity".
To say that evolutionists always say "anything can happen" is nonsense, and to continue to claim that without abiogenesis, evolution is impossible, does not make it the truth.
Well put.
RussP, I did what you asked. I read the article with an open mind. But it was obviously not written in such a spirit of fair play - confusing evolution and abiogenesis reveals either gross ignorance of science or a dishonest attempt to obfuscate. Neither option is particularly flattering to the author of this article.
Words mean things. Setting aside the particulars of any issue, when you have one side constantly trying to redefine terms, that's usually an indication that it doesn't have a legitimate argument. That tells an objective observer all he needs to know about this article.
How do you know that there was a predicate system? Why can't Evolution explain why inanimate matter evolved into the first living cell?
Try this ExPASy.org
You might also be interested in Metabolic Pathways of biochemistry
Thank you!
Because that is not what The Theory of Evolution is.
Again, it was YOU who proposed a predicate system. I merely answered that any predicate system is irrelevant (using more words, of course).
Actually, it looked more like the standard DU 9/11 Consoiracy Chart than anything.
It is just so small it is hard to see the contents.
And I resent that "most people" crack! I am "some people!" ;)
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.