Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ID falsifiable claims DI
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 5 (237513)
08-26-2005 6:39 PM


FROM: Intelligent Design is Falsifiable
(click)

Though common, this charge is demonstrably false. Of course there’s no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. This much we are agreed on. But contemporary design arguments focus not on such vague claims, but on detectible evidence for design in the natural world. Therefore, the design arguments currently in play are falsifiable.1
To move from biology to astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They argue that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design....
(bold, italic, footnote in the original)
My observations are that (1) all the "design arguments currently in play" have been refuted but are still proposed as if they hadn't (this violates the scientific approach) and (2) disproving each little derived mousetrap does not falsify the theory ^concept proposed, so they are not valid falsification tests of the concept, just moving goal-post pseudo-scientific slight of hand gimmickry posing as a logical position.
Furthermore cosmology has nothing to do with evolution and so cannot be used to argue against it.
The tests proposed to falsify these cosmological concepts are truly bizarre strawman type scenarios and not true falsification tests, further falsifying them will still not falsify ID and therefore these are not valid falsification tests of the concept, just another example of moving goal-post pseudo-scientific slight of hand gimmickry posing as a logical position.
Notice that the footnote to the passage above reads:
1 Recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories tend to resist simple refutation. If it were applied consistently, in fact, every theory in science would be hastily rejected. As a result, Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, which most commentators seem to presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science. Nevertheless, it’s certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it.
Nothing like a little bald assertion involving an appeal to anonymous authority fallacy and non-science (and let's try to baldly discredit the importance of falsifiability while we're trying desperately to show that ID is falsifiable ... if it's falsifiable you don't need to discredit it but embrace it).
Now watch http://www.markfiore.com/animation/super.html
And Enjoy.

... I'm thinking ID forum.
ps & note to moose: not trying to evade the propose new topics thread with hoaryhead, but trying to maintain a debate without taking another thread off-topic. feel free to move it to whatever forum you wish: probable dates and dating would be most appropriate, but it will require hoaryhead to provide real evidence while coffeehouse doesn't.
fixed typos
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*26*2005 06:41 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 08-26-2005 9:42 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2005 5:26 AM RAZD has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 5 (237524)
08-26-2005 7:31 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 8:46 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 5 (237548)
08-26-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
08-26-2005 7:31 PM


Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-26-2005 7:31 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 5 (237565)
08-26-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-26-2005 6:39 PM


oh yeah, i saw that.
i only got as far as the point where they said that behe's argument is not an argument from ignorance, but scientifically valid.
it of course IS from ignorance. it's saying "we don't know what mechanism did, therefor, magic." the problem with behe's "black box" is that it's HIS, not darwin's. darwin proposes a mechanism, behe does not. it's a black box solution.
the great thing about behe's idea thought is that it is indeed falsifiable. since it is a want of a mechanism, and ignorance of one, all you have to do is present proof that the proposed mechanisms can, does, and will continue to produce similar results.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 6:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 5 (237653)
08-27-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-26-2005 6:39 PM


Yes it's the standard ID trick. They claim that arguments from design can be refuted and therefore argue that ID is falsifiable. Then they claim that it is impossible to absolutely prove that evolution is false therefore evolution is unfalsifiable.
You have to wonder how anyone can miss the glaring double standard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2005 6:39 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024