Replies

To falsify ID, all an evolutionist has to do is show a realistic probability that the prebiotic soup could by chance form life.

That wouln't falsify ID, coz "The Designer" could still have done it.

To falsify ID, the ID advocates have to come up with the concept of a piece of evdence that MUST be observed for ID to have occurred, or something that cannot possibly exist if ID was responsible (and finding of which would thus falsify ID)

ID is falsfiable in a lot of ways. Dembski points out that if evolutionists could show any pathway that shows step by naturalistic step how a series of small, useful transitions can build a complex machine like flagellum, that would be enough to prove that it didn't have to be created by intelligence. I haven't found an evolutionist argument yet that does this.

In general, any assertion made by the ID side can be falsified by showing a natural explanation. Such as for the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning of the universe, etc. All that we ask is that someone produce a step by step process that is merely possible. Your argument appears to be (if I read you correctly) that the ID side will ultimately just refer any criticism back to God did it. But the reality I see is that the evolutionists are more likely to do so. No matter what criticism is leveled against evolution, the response is always either to ridicule ID or to say some unknown evolutionary mechanism accomplished the improbable or impossible. Evolution has yet to produce transitionary fossils, and can only do so by ignoring the fact that almost all fossils show that species don't change. Instead, they pick and choose among the fossil evidence, looking for things that look the same. Whenever a fossil doesn't fit the evolutionary timeline, they claim an animal evolved twice. Evolution also has yet to demonstrate speciation. Evolution also has yet to overcome the astronomical improbability of life forming at all, let alone evolving from a single cell to human being. Finally, the more we learn about cells themselves, the more we see that they are themselves irreducibly complex. Even the lauded computer simulated evolution program from Caltech, which evolutionist use to say evolution is easy, shows the exact opposite--that it is impossible--given realistic assumptions.

Evolution is a mess, and the only way it remains popular is the blind faith of people who refuse to admit they were built with something in mind. If ID is wrong and evolution is right, why are evolutionists unwilling to tackle the tough arguments presented by ID? Why do they instead seek to trivialize their opponent? Wouldn't be better to just prove ID wrong? Is it at all telling that they haven't yet, and seek to obscure the debate by calling names?

ID is falsfiable in a lot of ways. Dembski points out that if evolutionists could show any pathway that shows step by naturalistic step how a series of small, useful transitions can build a complex machine like flagellum, that would be enough to prove that it didn't have to be created by intelligence. I haven't found an evolutionist argument yet that does this.

In general, any assertion made by the ID side can be falsified by showing a natural explanation. Such as for the Cambrian explosion, fine tuning of the universe, etc. All that we ask is that someone produce a step by step process that is merely possible. Your argument appears to be (if I read you correctly) that the ID side will ultimately just refer any criticism back to God did it. But the reality I see is that the evolutionists are more likely to do so. No matter what criticism is leveled against evolution, the response is always either to ridicule ID or to say some unknown evolutionary mechanism accomplished the improbable or impossible. Evolution has yet to produce transitionary fossils, and can only do so by ignoring the fact that almost all fossils show that species don't change. Instead, they pick and choose among the fossil evidence, looking for things that look the same. Whenever a fossil doesn't fit the evolutionary timeline, they claim an animal evolved twice. Evolution also has yet to demonstrate speciation. Evolution also has yet to overcome the astronomical improbability of life forming at all, let alone evolving from a single cell to human being. Finally, the more we learn about cells themselves, the more we see that they are themselves irreducibly complex. Even the lauded computer simulated evolution program from Caltech, which evolutionist use to say evolution is easy, shows the exact opposite--that it is impossible--given realistic assumptions.

Evolution is a mess, and the only way it remains popular is the blind faith of people who refuse to admit they were built with something in mind. If ID is wrong and evolution is right, why are evolutionists unwilling to tackle the tough arguments presented by ID? Why do they instead seek to trivialize their opponent? Wouldn't be better to just prove ID wrong? Is it at all telling that they haven't yet, and seek to obscure the debate by calling names?