Replies

You have trapped yourself. You can either admit that the 'evolutionary paradigm' is no different from the 'design paradigm' and 'explains everything' *or* you can provide evidence which is not explained by the 'evolutionary paradigm', in which case you are arguing against your own position.

Apparently you don't know the difference between falsifiable and falsified. All valid scientific theories are falsifiable, but they have not been falsified, that is, they are still held as viable.

The idea is to conceive of something that would falsify your theory. An example of a data point that would falsify ToE would be finding bones of modern humans and mammals mixed in the Precambrian geological layers. That means ToE is falsifiable. Those kinds of bones haven't been found in that layer. The ToE has not yet been falsified in that way.

Now, conceive of a scenario that would falsify ID. Unless the means and methods of the designer are known and can be predicted, I don't see how it can be falsified at all.

I do understand the difference between falsifiable and falsified. Evolution is unfalsifiable.

I also see that you avoided my point that the evolutionary paradigm is no different. You claim that evolution is falsifiable, I can claim that ID is falsifiable. If we did not see individual species with genetic barriers to fertility, but an ability of all species to interbreed with all other species, that would falsify ID. Doesn't exist. See, ID is falsifiable but not falsified, just like evolution.

If discovering coded information that is not a property of the underlying matter (e.g., letters on a page, codons on a DNA strand) did not falsify evolution, nothing will.

Your example of human and mammal bones in pre-Cambrian layers would not falsify evolution. Ever heard of 'reworking'. This concept was developed to explain 'out-of-sequence' fossils.

Ever heard of the Lewis Overthrust? A supposed lateral displacement of 80 km, several hundred miles wide and several miles thick Proterozoic sedimentary rocks over Cretaceous rocks that are supposedly 1.5B years younger. If that didn't falsify the 'geologic column', nothing will.

You see, the strength of the theory is entirely in the mind of the beholder. There is plenty of evidence to falsify evolution, yet evolution remains unfalsifiable simply because its adherents have the liberty to craft *any* natural explanation, even when they are patently absurd.

This is the commitment to naturalism that I alluded to earlier. It truly is the foundation of evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang. Strip that belief away and the theories collapse.

The problem with most assertions that the SToE is not falsifiable is the tendency to treat it as a single theory. For the 'Theory of Evolution' to be falsified all the sub-theories would, in turn, need to be falsified. I believe the number of falsifications necessary leads anti-evolutionists, who tend to see many things in terms of dichotomies, to think the SToE is unfalsifiable. Each of the sub-theories is falsifiable but if you view the SToE as one theory it is easy to point out that falsifying one sub-theory does not falsify the whole thing. It just 'looks' unfalsifiable.

What I find interesting is the contention that the SToE is not falsifiable but a single instance of an ICS falsifies the entire theory.