Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Anatomical Vestiges -- Evidence of Common Descent
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 34 (418628)
08-29-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Fallen
08-29-2007 11:45 AM


quote:
Intelligent Design is a scientific research program dedicated to finding and analyzing signs of Intelligence like Behe’s irreducible complexity or Dembski’s complex, specified information
None of that is true. ID has no scientiifc research program. Behe's "irreducible complexity" is a failed argument against evolution. Dembski's "complex specified information" is in an even worse situation - there's been no serious attempt to apply it to biology at all (I don't count Dembski's attempt to apply it to a bacterial flagellum as serious as he not only does the wrong calculation, he also completely ignores evolution, based on a misrepresentation of Behe).
quote:
As a result, Intelligent Design is falsifiable/testable, since one has only to demonstrate that the signs of intelligence that Intelligent Design is based on can be explained by natural causes in order to falsify it
Refuting an argument for ID - which is what you are talking about would not refute ID itself. It is interesting that ID advocates use such a low standard for falsifiability when they want to claim that ID is falsifiable and then switch to a far higher standard when they want to claim that evolution is not falsifiable.
quote:
If we found a frog with vestigial wings, people would see it as an organ “on its way in” rather than “on its way out,” and possibly even use it as further evidence for evolution. For example, flying fish have wings, but that isn’t considered to be evidence against evolution, in spite of the fact that they clearly have no ancestors with better wings.
But isn't that because the flying fish "wings" are clearly modified fins rather than insect wings or bird wings or bat wings ? In short isn't it the case that this is what we would expect to see if evolution were true rather than a designer reusing existing designs ?
Edited by PaulK, : Clean up typing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Fallen, posted 08-29-2007 11:45 AM Fallen 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