Replies

I see what you are saying. The problem with ID is that we can prove it is not false.

You seem to be agreeing, so I think you meant "The problem with ID is that we cannot prove it is not false." Yes, exactly. But there would be ways of proving the theory of evolution false. (The Nobel Prizes are waiting for the man, woman, or monkey who does).

Any experimental test that we can propose to do as humans to prove or disprove the validity of ID runs into the same problem that is inherent in using electron microscopes. Any use of the Microscope to observe electrons, affects the outcome.

First I've heard of this. Is there an experimental basis for this? Please pardon my characterization of ID, but it appears to me to be indistinguisable from an argument from incredulity. "We can't explain this bit here, so it must have been designed." Unfortunately, the history of discovery is littered with bits of things that once couldn't be explained in any way. Until someone figured out how to explain them.

Unfortunately, I know of now way of proving it true. But the same can be said of evolution itself.

Evolution won't be proven true ... it will just be "not falsified." Which is where it is now. If evolutionary theory is faslified, the results will be shouted from the rooftops by scientists.

In any case, adding "a designer did this part," which appears to be ID's position, doesn't add to knowledge or have any predictive value. And, as you've agreed, can't be falsified.

I actually meant what I said when I said that we can prove that ID is not false. Similarly we cannot empirically (as of now) prove it true.

Any experimentation in the evolution field necessarily means a designer of the experiment, thus showing that ID was absolutely needed for the experiment to succeed. That's a catch-22 for the evolutionists. Because any experiment that they can propose won't necessarily bolster the case for evolution, but it will, by its very nature, validate the case for ID.