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 ...
In the spirit of free and open inquiry, I challenge evolutionists to read the article and actually think rather than simply regurgitating the standard evolutionist talking points and ad hominem insults.
And please do not add bogus keywords. That will only demonstrate your inability to debate rationally.
First figure out how you determine what science is.
No. Next!
You are a classic example of someone who is beyond the reach of reason. Congratulations!
*CREVO FLYING BRICK-BAT PING LIST*
Note: You have been pinged because I noticed you engaging in a spirited discussion on a previous CREVO thread. This is a low-volume, bi-partisan, ping list designed to bring the occasional interesting article on this topic to your attention. If you would like to be removed from this ping list, please drop me a FReepmail.
TOE does not depend on abiogenesis.
That's nice, but has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution doesn't care how the first cell came into being, it could have been random chance, it could have been the flying spaghetti monster, it could have been a UFO that came down and planted it.
It really doesn't matter to evolution, there was a first cell that was an imperfect replicator, and evolution took it from there.
TO say that the first cell popping up by itself makes evolution impossible is a strawman argument, and does nothing to the theory of evolution.
Like buying an item for two dollars and selling it for two dollars, and hoping to make money on volume....
Example of ad hominem insult?
BTW, there is no such thing as an evolutionist, either you understand the theory, or you don't. In science there is no belief. There is scientific evidence, that backs up the theory, that is falsifiable and repeatable.
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.
Without physics, is there no astronomy? Without archeology, is there not microbiology?
they are 2 separate theories, they are related in a cosmological sense, but as far as whether the theories depend on each other to be true, is complete nonsense, and again, a strawman argument.
create strawman, tear the strawman down, and say up front, don't you dare attack my strawman as being a strawman.
Sorry, burn strawman, burn!
I'll bet you think you win a debate by shouting louder than the other guy.
"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."
So you are claiming that evolution is possible without abiogenesis? So evolution could have occurred without the first living cell? With all due respect, I think you are profoundly confused.
Not exactly. That would mean that one hypothesis put forward by intelligent design has been falsified.
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.