Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 193 of 292 (230900)
08-08-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Evopeach
08-07-2005 9:17 PM


Re: ID and ICS: A Talking Point
Good morning, Evopeach.
You wrote:
quote:
V. It should be rejected that a simple statement of how a viable series of precursors could have come about as a verbal rejourner for such is never permitted in scientifice falsification experiments... iii and IV are required.
The person proposing is entitled to maintain their position of IC until it is falsified as above.
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that Irreducible Complexity is a verbal rejoinder to the theory of evolution. According to your criteria, proponents of the ToE do not yet have any reason to entertain IC as a possible falsification.
Any system you nominate for IC status functions within a large set of complex systems, all of which, according to the ToE, are subject to mutational changes subject to natural selection.
In order for an IC claim to falsify the ToE, evidence must show not only that removing a single component deprives the subsystem of function, but also that it would deprive the subsystem of function in any possible set of companion subsystems (i.e., fail to cohere as a viable, reproducible organism).
You have radically redefined falsification: as already pointed out, IC collapses entirely if a single component can be removed without loss of function--that it cannot is the essence of the IC claim.
It seems fair, since IC is an attempted falsification, for you to go first.
Once you have reverse engineered an organism and demonstrated that the ToE fails because no possible constellation of prior subsystems can cohere as an organism, then ToE will be compelled to consider IC a serious candidate for falsification. As you say,
quote:
Repeating this backwards is a huge task for complex systems that is obvious but that is the only fair falsification
After you, Evopeach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Evopeach, posted 08-07-2005 9:17 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 10:46 AM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 197 of 292 (230950)
08-08-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Evopeach
08-08-2005 10:46 AM


Fish or cut bait
No, Evopeach, you did not name the topic. The topic is named, "Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions). You may subtitle your messages as you please, but that does not armor your underlying propositions.
You may certainly claim that your observations of the universe suggest a designer, and even rightfully claim that this position predates the theory of evolution.
But, as a matter of historical record, the assertion of irreducible complexity in biological systems was made for the express purpose of falsifying the theory of evolution.
If you want to support irreducible complexity as a falsification of the theory of evolution, don't you think you should apply the standards for falsification that you defined?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 10:46 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 11:51 AM Omnivorous has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 203 of 292 (231012)
08-08-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Evopeach
08-08-2005 11:51 AM


Re: Fish or cut bait
Once running the SRF (sarcastic rhetoric filter), we are left with (emphasis added):
quote:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" - Darwin himself in Origin of Species.
Exactly: and ID via IC claims to be able to do just that.
So the question becomes, where is the demonstration? ID wielding IC makes a "verbal rejoinder" with no more apparent grounds of support than incredulity...but where is the demonstration?
Yes, if you want to falsify the ToE, you have to do the work, not insinuate that proponents of the ToE won't do your critical work for you because they are afraid of the outcome.
Cite the studies, post the data: don't just echo the refrain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 11:51 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Evopeach, posted 08-08-2005 3:36 PM Omnivorous 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