StephenB

You are becoming abrasive again: “When I throughly refuted both points, you continued on as sleek as ever” (Ironic given the original title of the post). I am stopping our dialogue.

I thought that Upright Biped, confirming Timmeaus, had made the point sufficiently clear, holding that Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified since it posits an “unguided” process.

As a response, you began by saying that “undirected evolution” is not, in fact, a part of the Darwinist hypothesis, and that no self respecting scientist would characterize it that way. When I throughly refuted both points, you continued on as sleek as ever by saying that, well, it is “only a part” of the hypothesis, as if that constituted a new argument. When I explained that being only a part of the hypothesis is enough to make it unscientific, you responded again by saying that we are drifting.

My point @ 100 was to explain WHY Darwinists must insist that evolution is an unguided process, because I thought the additional information would edify everyone concerned, including yourself. If, on the other hand, you do not care about the reasons that Darwinists posit unguided, undirected, unplanned evolution, then I trust we can simply agree that they do, and as a result, render their hypothesis unfalsifiable—unless, of course, you want to start all over again by denying the point anew and reducing me to presenting another round of examples.

StephenB

I was only concerned with the request of Timeaus to show how “Darwinian evolution” might be falsified. We seem to have drifted off the subject a bit.

But it shouldn’t be in the hypothesis at all, and the fact that it is, in whatever form, or with whatever justification, completely invalidates it as a scientific formulation.

Let me show you in dialogical form how this works and why Darwinists must characterized evolution as an unguided process:

D = [Darwinist]

ID = [ID proponent].

D: Do you believe in evolution or are you one of those religious fanatics who think that God created the universe?

ID: I simply follow where the evidence leads, and the evidence points to design.

D: So, just as I suspected. You are an evolution denier.

ID: No, not really. I accept evolution as a distinct possibility.

D: But, as an ID advocate, you don’t really accept evolution because you deny common descent.

ID: No, not really. While some of us are skeptical about that point, the ID paradigm itself allows for common descent or macro evolution, whichever way you want to put it.

D: Ah, but do you accept undirected, macro evolution? Simply acknowledging the possibility of macro-evolution, or even accepting it as a fact, will not exempt you from the charge of “creationism.” You must accept undirected, macro evolution or else you are simply allowing your religion to leak into your methods. Either you accept undirected macro evolution [metaphysics posing as science] or you are not a scientist. In keeping with that point, I hereby declare by fiat that science must study nature as if nature is all there is [methodological naturalism, the epistemological guard that protects the metaphysics].

As a simple institutional strategy for survival, the Darwinist must include the element of “unguidedness” as part of his hypothesis? If he doesn’t, he has nothing more to say once ID confirms that it is not anti-evolution in principle. Thus, Darwinists are “all in” for undirected evolution and depend on this metaphysical intrusion on science as a defense against all evidence to the contrary.

Hence, a statement [around the year 2000] From the Kansas Board of Education

“Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”

See how that works? To protect their psuedo science, Darwinists must establish non-scientific definitions and rules, and enforce them through the use of power. It’s as simple as that.

StephenB

It is part of the hypothesis. But only part. Without the additional detail i.e. a specific method of providing unguided evolution it would be unfalsifiable because it could include any unguided method – including those yet to be imagined. With the additional detail it becomes falsifiable. That’s why no biologist would propose unguided evolution as a hypothesis without the additional detail.

I did not attempt to move the goalposts. I am sorry if it comes across that way.

Mark

—”No respectable biologist in the world is putting forward the hypothesis “unguided evolution” as a scientific hypothesis. They are putting forward specific hypotheses which happen to be unguided. I don’t mean that it is unimportant that the hypotheses are unguided. It may well be something that the biologist wants to stress about the hypothesis – as you show in your examples. However, the hypothesis is not just “evolution is unguided”. It is far more specific which allows it to be falsified and makes it scientific.”

It is either a part of the hypothesis or it isn’t. Do you not notice how you have moved the goalposts. You can’t reasonably say, on the one hand, that it is NOT a part of the hypothesis and then turn around and say that it is ONLY a part of the hypothesis.

Indeed, Darwinism in the broader sense, has its own way of moving the goalposts, as its hypothesis, like yours, keeps morphing and morphing in an attempt to find new life as its older manifestations are killed off by the evidence.

Look at comments 45, 65, and 82 under the heading of “TRIVIAL”.

I have read this comments and I am no clearer. Could you not just answer “true” or “false”? Is that an obscure request?

“When it comes down to it one of the requests was for something that would falsify the “Darwinian hypothesis””

There was never a request to falsify microevolution (see #82). Please dont make us go through that again.

“Do you know – after all these words I have no idea whether you think that response is true or false!”

Look at comments 45, 65, and 82 under the heading of “TRIVIAL”.

“But of course I am the one guilty of obfuscation.”

If the shoe fits.

BA^77

Thank for a short comment. However, it is irrelevant. My case is extraordinarily simple.

Darwinian evolution cannot happen without microevolution.

Therefore if microevolution were shown to be false Darwinian evolution would be show to be false

QED

Where is the flaw?