Posted on 10/17/2005 4:57:21 PM PDT by curiosity
I think the claim that ID can't be falsified is aimed at something other than an endless series of challenges along the lines of "You haven't explained this one!" Evolution makes predictions, based on the concept of common descent. Every new fossil must fit into The Tree of Life. If something is found that's obviously out of place (the proverbial Precambrian rabbit), it falsifies the theory. But with ID, literally anything that may be found is yet another wondrous work of the designer. No pattern is required. ID makes no predictions that can ever be falsified, thus (in that sense) ID isn't testable.
BTW, he's really nice. I emailed him with a quesiton and he responded the same day. And I'm not a Brown, or even a biology a student!
I'm not a physicist, but I think it is within.
At any rate, the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.
One of my most enduring playthings as a child (and one which awoke and fueled my inventiveness as a professional) was a marvelous collection of interchangable components called an "Erector Set". The number of clever mechanisms one could make with an "Erector Set" was virtually limited only by one's creativity -- and the number of components available.
However, I never encountered anything useful that formed when I dumped the pieces onto the floor. And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable.
About all one could claim is that the components themselves were so formed (some would say, "designed") so as to be suitable for both assemblies and sub-assemblies (or simpler, but different, assemblies).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am certainly no proponent of "Intelligent Design" as a substitute for sientific rigor -- even though my personal experience with the workings of God in my daily life is incontrovertible.
As a Christian who is also a physical scientist, I find no need to allow my religious beliefs to taint the rigor of my scientific studies. Nor do I have any prediliction to allow those who would force a blending of the two to dilute my scientific endeavors -- or to diminish my spiritual awe at the majesty of all that science reveals to me.
"Creation Scientists" and "Intelligent Designists": neither my faith nor my science has need of your attempts to shove your primitive world view into either my beliefs or my science. I don't need your "help" -- and neither, IMHO, does our God.
You and LogicWings can debate whether those gaps are theory or fact
Ooops! Sorry, Ladies, I intended to include you (info copy only) in the addressees for #25...
God's purposes are good, that is the classical Western understanding.
So what? If you think this would somehow be analogous to the process of evolution, then you simply do not understand the latter.
And I find the conclusion that, because simpler contrivances can be made from parts of a larger one constitutes evidence for "natural selection" to be insupportable.
Why?
Neverthless, evolutionary theory is ultimately based on untestable assumptions; eg., that mutations occur randomly, as opposed to being caused by an intelligent designer.
Thanks for the ping. Thank you Kenneth Miller.
Then he should have had no trouble debating again for the sake of the audience and the point of view that he is trying to advance. More likely he was afraid of being thoroughly trounced.
To be fair to Behe, it is hard to debate a speaker if you're just a member of the audience.
How would you test for mutations caused by an intelligent designer? Chemistry? Paleontology? Anthropology? Physics? Biology? Microscopes? DNA? Bible? Faith?
Please, just how would you test this?
That's not an assumption. It's an inference based on observable evidence.
Besides, mutations being random is not necessarily inconsistent with them being caused by a designer. Random just means it is unpredictable given the information set available at the present. If God were causing the mutations in unpredictable ways, they would appear random to us.
"that mutations occur randomly..."
Mutations do occur randomly, as has been shown countless times in laboratory experiments.
Leave the talking points behind and get some facts. You'll be a better bug for it.
Thanks for the ping.
With the Handy-Dandy Acme Design-o-meter™, available wherever fine chiropractic test equipment is sold.
Yes, I agree. I initially assumed he was an exceptional journalism student but it appears he works for the University's Communications Office - still, he did a much better job than the professional "journalists" who have covered the trial so far.
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.