Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.
ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.
A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.
This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.
Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.
"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.
Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.
###
Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.
Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.
Not to mention it doesnt make a hill of beans what they believe or have to confess to to be a part of a group if the evidence is credible the evidence is credible! Evidence is evidence, period!
This article on Murphy's research does not support your claim that "Scientists question natures fundemental laws."
Murphy is trying for a possibly more accurate estimate of the fine structure constant. He is not doing anything which supports creation "science" nor which casts doubt on science or the scientific method. (Do you read the things you reference, or just take the word of the creation "science" websites?)
Take a look: Michael Murphy's Research.
That may be true in apologetics. It is not true in science.
A "scientist" who subscribes to a code of religious belief which is diametrically opposed to the scientific method, such as the one I cited, is not doing science. Any results they produce will be suspect.
I have examined a number of these results in my field of expertise and found them to be wanting. Apologetics, not science.
Intelligent design is no ally to Christians. It only gives you some type of First principle or Prime Mover, as in Aristotle or the 17th century Rationalists. It doesn't lead to the Revealed God or the Incarnate Christ. However, I have a couple of scientist friends (I mean real scientists), one of whom is a physicist, and both say that the "argument from design" is the most compelling argument for God's existence. They remain sceptical, however.
Now, that's a hoot. I think the definition of "design" is the key here.
Gotaheadacheafterpageonebumpforlater
Dissolution in the Roman empire, that came from there ever increasing immorality.
How come the walls of Jericho fell inward where this is not understood since when walss are destroyed thaey fall outward.
Sodom and Gomorah is not a myth they have found the actual citys my friend and they are covered with a substance that the locals call Brimstone, this is absolute archeaological fact, like I said you need to catch up!
Indonesia is the porn capital of the world, when the Sunami hit gangs waited and came back to kid nap orphaned children.
A blessed nation but immoral citys.
And for your last ridiculous comments I wont even bother! The United States is what I meant, if you have to be that arrogant. Europes unemployed? have it easy because of those who work! and get ripped off by over burdening taxation,(which also is a job loser, over taxation so slobs can live high on the hog)) dont you remember the stories of old, of the kings and the peasants, it seems they want that all over again, but I got news for you communism doesnt work!
You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time!
Pure smack! MHalblob or what ever your name is? You realy should try and be honest!
That doesnt make a bit of sense coyoteman!
Evidence is evidence! You cant argue your way out of it! If a blade of grass is green and someone shows it to be indicated so with evidence, then its evidence, period!
If a creation "science" website told me I have five digits on each hand, I'd count the digits on both hands before I believed a word of it.
They are simply untrustworthy when it comes to science.
Coal formations you say, layered by by water from a Flood perhaps? Its nice that you mentioned coal formation(or should I say rapid coal formation which is exactly what the evidencepoints to) which is more evidence to a global flood in which massive amounts of sediment and water and layers of vegitation from enormous volcanic activity that would have occured in a global flood, thanks for the reminder.
Labratory research in the past few decades has shown may be formed quickly. In May of 1972 George R. Hill, Dean of the College of Mines and Minerals Industries wrote an article published in the Journal of Chemical Technology, now known as Chemtech. He commented , A rather startling and serendiputous discovery resulted... these observations suggest that in there formation, high rank coals,...were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event. Hill made coal industinguishable from natural coal in SIX HOURS.
Many more!!!!!
British researchers Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University.
Natural coal may also be formed quickly,--- Argonne National Labratories
Yet Many more!!!!!
For these things covetesnous, adultery, Fornication the wrath of God is coming on those the sons of disobedience.
Forgiveness can be for anyone In Christ! Amen! Sorry about name calling MHalblaub, peace friend!
Thats pure bologne! Evolutionist are the untrustworthy ones they have been caught in countless frauds, Evidence is evidence, there claims arent taken from their own research, its gathered from all sources, and I dont care what your posting was for a resource I dont get my resources from the site you posted, I get it from random articles and many scintists who use to be evolutionist, and they show great evidence which is widely known by the whole scientific community and that it is greatly against evolution. Even Steven J Gould and many other dishonest evolutionists have spoken against their own lack of evidence for the reasoning for believeing in evolution.
Not the first place I would look for scientific evidence.
Countless? Nice try.
Name five.
Scientific evidence is scientific evidence, my resource was from an evolutionist turned HONEST!
Nice cut and paste you say? cut and paste would be, the websites you guys always post and propagandise and then say oh look these sites up, there not biased. But that isnt going to fool an honest thinker! The science Ive posted is sound and even some of it was taken from affiliated sources, which doesnt make a bit of difference, if its noted and recognised and been shown to be a probable for evidence it doesnt matter where it came from evolutionists or Christian!!! If it is honest note worthy info, its honest note worthy info. Period! I realy dont think anyone would disagree nor could they! Peace!
All these sources Ive posted concerning coal formation have NO Christian affiliation, but like I said it wouldnt matter if they did, because evidence is evidence and can be tested and disputed by anyone, in which it isnt disputed, except by adhock story tellers/ embarrased evolutionists.
If that is the case, here is some additional "honest note worthy info" which you will assuredly agree with.
These are from my profession, archaeology (western US):
This evidence is from one narrow field of study -- archaeology, and one small area -- the western US. There is a lot more evidence from archaeology in other areas, and there are a lot more fields of study.
They all fail to support a global flood at 2300 BC.
Perhaps you should forget the coal layers, accept that the flood is a religious belief, and stop trying to twist and distort science in a futile effort to make scientific facts fit your religious belief.
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.