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

Skip to comments.

Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
Russ Paielli ^ | 2006-10-01 | Russ Paielli

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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abiogenesis; creationism; evolution; falsifiability; idiocy; idjunkscience; ignorance; intelligentdesign; science; seti
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-410 next last
I have posted this article before, but that was a long time ago, and I just revised it a bit, so I decided to post it again.

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.

1 posted on 10/01/2006 4:18:55 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RussP

First figure out how you determine what science is.


2 posted on 10/01/2006 4:20:17 PM PDT by cornelis (Fecisti nos ad te)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP

No. Next!


3 posted on 10/01/2006 4:21:08 PM PDT by AntiGuv (o) ™ (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
===> Placemarker <===
4 posted on 10/01/2006 4:21:42 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

You are a classic example of someone who is beyond the reach of reason. Congratulations!


5 posted on 10/01/2006 4:22:28 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RussP; Right Wing Professor; DoctorMichael; sinkspur; bornacatholic; VadeRetro; ahayes; ...

*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.

6 posted on 10/01/2006 4:23:44 PM PDT by Al Simmons (Takeshi Kitano - The Babe Ruth of Japanese Movie Directors/Stars.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP

TOE does not depend on abiogenesis.


7 posted on 10/01/2006 4:25:31 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP

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.


8 posted on 10/01/2006 4:25:42 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
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.

Like buying an item for two dollars and selling it for two dollars, and hoping to make money on volume....

9 posted on 10/01/2006 4:27:17 PM PDT by tomzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
You are a classic example of someone who is beyond the reach of reason. Congratulations!

Example of ad hominem insult?

10 posted on 10/01/2006 4:31:29 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of an American Soldier fighting in the WOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Yes. Next!
11 posted on 10/01/2006 4:31:56 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Benedict is very clear. In his recent speech he covered many areas, only one got much attention. But, in addition to his comments on Islam Benedict appears to clearly reject the foundations of Intelligent Design. He said,

"Only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific...A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God."
12 posted on 10/01/2006 4:33:37 PM PDT by spatso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
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. 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.
13 posted on 10/01/2006 4:33:56 PM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP

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!


14 posted on 10/01/2006 4:34:19 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RussP
If Intelligent Design is categorically rejected, then that first cell must have come together more or less by random chance.

Strawman. "Intelligent Design" is not "categorically rejected". Moreover, "Intelligent Design" does not specify the origin of the first cell. Finally, the theory of evolution is independent of the means by which the first life form(s) came to exist. Your argument employs three false premises, thus it cannot be trusted as valid.
15 posted on 10/01/2006 4:34:25 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 69ConvertibleFirebird

I'll bet you think you win a debate by shouting louder than the other guy.


16 posted on 10/01/2006 4:34:56 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

If that is a falsification criteria, then Intelligent Design has already been falsified.
17 posted on 10/01/2006 4:35:44 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jaguarbhzrd

"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.


18 posted on 10/01/2006 4:39:02 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Not exactly. That would mean that one hypothesis put forward by intelligent design has been falsified.


19 posted on 10/01/2006 4:39:11 PM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RussP
So you are claiming that evolution is possible without abiogenesis? So evolution could have occurred without the first living cell?

False dichotomy. The "first living cell" need not have come about through abiogenesis.
20 posted on 10/01/2006 4:40:22 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-410 next last

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.

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