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
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}