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

To: FairWitness
"Coming at it from the other direction, specific hypotheses put forward in the name of intelligent design (e.g., flagella are too complicated to have evolved by darwinian processes) are falsifiable if it can be shown that darwinian processes are capable of producing flagella.

That isn't true. All that shows is that a particular sequence of evolutionary steps can occur, it does nothing to falsify ID for any other case. The theory, or all its subtheories if it is a complex theory, needs to be generally falsifiable.

Contrary to your example, ID and Evolution are not mutually exclusive so proving one does not falsify the other.

Your falsification criterion does not address the potential for a designer to have produced a design that appears evolved.

"Saying that is too much work or will take too long is avoiding the issue. If the hypothesis is not falsifiable, then perhaps the production of flagella by evolution is an article of faith.

Again, the potential falsifiability of ID says nothing about the falsifiability, or the validity, of the SToE.

We cannot falsify ID because there are no criteria for its falsifiability, not because Evolution is incorrect. They aren't linked at this level.

243 posted on 10/02/2006 8:29:47 AM PDT by b_sharp (Objectivity? Objectivity? We don't need no stinkin' objectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: b_sharp

Placemarker


247 posted on 10/02/2006 9:07:09 AM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies ]

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