Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Interesting Refutation of George Will and Charles Krauthammer on ID

William Dembski
December 1, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Don’t Fear the Designer
Competing philosophies and beliefs.

By Tom Bethell
December 01, 2005, 8:29 a.m.

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bethell200512010829.asp

Comments
After reading a Krauthammer opinion piece in my local paper, I submitted the following response and it was published. Here is Krauthammer's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111701304.html I couldn't find my response on the online version of my paper, so here it is as published under the title “Seek rational thought” in the Lincoln Journal Star on November 29, 2005. I would have you know that according to Microsoft Word it is exactly 250 words long. Perfection in human form. Enjoy. "In his article in the LJS on Sunday, November 20, Charles’ Krauthammer makes the assertion that intelligent design as a science is “a fraud.” He then supports this thesis statement by making personal attacks on Pat Robertson and certain school board members in Dover, Pa. He assures us that many people of faith such as Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are among our greatest scientists and contrasts them to intelligent design theorists. Perhaps Krauthammer should focus his intellect on people who are more worthy of his attention, since he prefers attacking people to making objective arguments. If people like Einstein or Newton were around today, Krauthammer and others like him would undoubtedly consider them too difficult to take on and ignore them. A judgment of intelligent design theory should not be made based on the view of a common man on the street or an off-the-wall preacher. It seems unfortunate to me that because of people like Krauthammer and Robertson, society will have to wait until the religious fanaticism embroiling this issue blows over before it can make an objective judgment. Perhaps the fanatics and simple-minded will return to their old friend, the place and time of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ. I am hopeful this will happen because the writers of the Left Behind series, Tim LeHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, have started writing a prequel series. Until the Second Coming, intelligent people must endure these ubiquitous irrelevant arguments and wait for rationality to make its appearance."tragicmishap
December 5, 2005
December
12
Dec
5
05
2005
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
keiths the attempt to disqualify ID as being credible as a scientific theory is not a point I want to debate you over and over and over again. If you don't accept it as such fine.mentok
December 4, 2005
December
12
Dec
4
04
2005
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
keiths my point is that you want to argue over the validity of ID as being acceptable scientifically. I reject that argument no matter how you want to phrase it.mentok
December 4, 2005
December
12
Dec
4
04
2005
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
mentok writes: "keiths my argument about scientific theories being proven by results is common sense. If you want to create some philosophical argument fine which are of no value, fine." The problem is that common sense can be wrong. Common sense tells us that light should travel faster when its source is moving. It doesn't. Instead of pleading "common sense" or accusing me of "rhetorical games" and "sophistry", how about an actual rationale for why my Newtonian mechanics example is invalid? Our discussion won't be productive unless we actually address each other's arguments.keiths
December 4, 2005
December
12
Dec
4
04
2005
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
keiths my argument about scientific theories being proven by results is common sense. If you want to create some philosophical argument fine which are of no value, fine. As far as a scientific observation which can falsify an intelligent designer goes; it is irrelevant to anything that I can think of in the arguments made by scientists who favor intelligent design over evolution. The question shouldn't be whether or not a designer can be falsified but whether or not design inference can be falsified. If you want to use rhetorical games to try and discredit ID as not having scientific credibility, then that only points out the strength of the ID argument. When you have to resort to sophistry in order to challenge a scientific theory you in effect are throwing in the towel and trying to win the fight on a technicality.mentok
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
mentok writes: "keiths you can quote sophistry if you want but I reject that argument. Scientific theories being proven is the basis for technology. If I make the theory that if I use a magnetic field and electric current etc that I can build an electric motor, and then if I apply that theory in building an electric motor and the result is that it works according to what the theory predicts, then I have proven a scientific theory." Bicycles are designed according to Newtonian principles. They work. Yet Newtonian mechanics is known to be invalid and has been replaced by better theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity). How, then, does a working electric motor prove your hypothetical electromagnetic theory? As hard as you may find it to believe, the idea that science cannot prove theories is generally accepted among scientists and philosophers. Here are a couple of examples: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." --Richard Feynman "...science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." --Bertrand Russell mentok writes: "I don’t accept the argument that an intelligent designer needs to be falsifiable in order to infer from scientific data that evolution is wrong." Neither do I. Evolutionary theory and ID are separate theories. The falsifiability of one does not depend on the falsifiability of the other. Nice try at changing the subject. But you still haven't answered the question (or shown why it is irrelevant). You know the drill: What is an example of a scientific observation that would falsify ID's concept of a (possibly omnipotent) intelligent designer?keiths
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
i am not puckSR as you two imply. perhaps the reason for our similar arguments is that we are both biology students. mentok i have not fully reviewed the site you linked, but i intend to. in the mean time, can you please tell me what you would accept as a legitimate "transitional fossil?" i feel the example i provided was a good example. thanksinfamous
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
I agree dave, infamous also has the exact same grammar and the exact same arguments as puck.mentok
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
keiths you can quote sophistry if you want but I reject that argument. Scientific theories being proven is the basis for technology. If I make the theory that if I use a magnetic field and electric current etc that I can build an electric motor, and then if I apply that theory in building an electric motor and the result is that it works according to what the theory predicts, then I have proven a scientific theory. You can turn to sophistry and semantics if you want to argue the point, I don't care. I don't accept the argument that an intelligent designer needs to be falsifiable in order to infer from scientific data that evolution is wrong. infamous you can try this http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/Discontinuties.htmlmentok
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Josh Bozeman writes: "ID isn’t ABOUT the designer, it’s about the design, so you’re asking for an event that’s not going to happen within the framework of this theory. Since ID doesn’t even touch the issue of the designer, it has no use in dealing with the issues you speak of (a designer that could create any world possible.)" Josh, many IDers look at the fine tuning of physical constants in the universe and conclude that it must be the result of intelligent design. For example, see http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=91 Now, surely you are not trying to tell me that this hypothesis (that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent) is outside the purview of ID theory, are you? What could be more IDish than saying that the world had an intelligent designer? So the question becomes, how could we test that hypothesis? What sort of scientific observation would, in principle, convince us that the world did NOT have an intelligent designer? In other words, how is the hypothesis falsifiable? The problem, of course, is that a designer powerful enough to set the constants of nature controls how nature appears under scientific scrutiny. In my perverse example, the designer could even mold the universe so that evolution appeared to be indisputably true to everyone. So if even the best evidence for evolution fails to falsify the ID hypothesis, what would?keiths
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
mentok: in the time that ive been "lurking" (as described by DaveScot) ive seen the mistake of abiogenesis = evolution many times so i took the opportunity to throw that out there, it may have applied to other posts better than to yours, but i used yours to make a general point. you say that you want mechanisms that allow for genetic diversity... how about recombination, gene flow, mutation, etc. you also speak of the fossil record... tell me how the fossil record is a problem for evolution? the fossil record has backed up evolution... http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;310/5753/1483 DaveScot: i have been following the "debate" on this blog for a couple weeks. i slowly became more and more frustrated with the way things were going. it seems people like you refuse to engage in real debate. it frustrates me that things always somehow come back to Christians vs. Atheists. this is supposed to be a "scientific debate." i simply want both sides of the argument to be considered fairly and to stay on the topic. stop name calling. stick to the evidence. Mr. Dembski vowed to censor material that was not productive to the debate. i want him to follow through on that. (or possibly that means productive only to ONE side of the debate...)infamous
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
infamous Funny that when puckSR got the boot you immediately showed up and made your first comments here speaking in his defense. You claimed to have been around long enough to say you thought puckSR claimed to be a Christian so you've at least been a lurker for a while. Yet now you don't seem at all coy about making comments instead of lurking. What's up with that?DaveScot
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
ID isn't ABOUT the designer, it's about the design, so you're asking for an event that's not going to happen within the framework of this theory. Since ID doesn't even touch the issue of the designer, it has no use in dealing with the issues you speak of (a designer that could create any world possible.)Josh Bozeman
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
mentok, you write: "All of modern technology is based on scientific theories that were proven to be correct. How do you think technoilogy is created?" Technology is not based on theories that have been proven right; it is based on theories that have not yet been proven wrong. Here's how Don Lindsay puts it: "The big question about a theory is whether it's right or wrong. Unfortunately, it's impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. The theory may agree beautifully with all the evidence - today. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow. So, we go for the next best thing, which is proving theories wrong. That's easy. You just find some evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The theory is then falsified and stays that way. So, a scientific theory is one which can in principle be falsified. The theory has to make strong statements about evidence. If the statements aren't strong, then the theory fits any evidence, and is unfalsifiable. That's bad." For example, consider Newtonian mechanics. This theory lasted for over 200 years and forms the basis of countless successful technologies which are still in use today. Yet anomalies (such as the precession of Mercury's orbit) forced scientists to abandon it early in the 20th century in favor of Einstein's theory of general relativity. You also wrote: "What would you consider to be a scientific observation which would falsify evolution?" I gave four examples in my reply to SteveB (see comment #10 above): 1. Haldane’s famous example of “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” 2. The discovery of an entirely different genetic code in, say, domestic cats vs. ocelots. 3. An extremely low mutation rate of, say, one nucleotide per hundred million years. 4. A complete lack of correlation between phylogenies based on phenetic vs. molecular homologies. Nice try at deflecting the question by echoing it back at me. I answered it. Now it's your turn. Let me try a third time: Can you give an example of a specific scientific observation which would falsify the existence of an omnipotent designer, keeping in mind that such a designer is perfectly capable of creating any possible world, including one with the appearance of undirected evolution, if for some inscrutable reason it wants to? Please don't avoid the question this time. If you don't have an answer, it's okay. Just say so.keiths
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT
keiths you wrote: "The problem is that science can never prove any theory, which after all is why the concept of falsification is so important." That's ridiculous. With all of the technology in our world how can anyone say that? All of modern technology is based on scientific theories that were proven to be correct. How do you think technoilogy is created? First a scientific theory is postulated and then experiment is conducted to see if it is correct. From that we gain things like the light bulb, or t.v and radio, or cars, or computers. Then you wrote: "So again, I invite you to describe a specific scientific observation which would falsify the existence of an omnipotent designer, keeping in mind that such a designer is perfectly capable of creating any possible world, including one with the appearance of undirected evolution, if for some inscrutable reason it wants to." What would you consider to be a scientific observation which would falsify evolution? infamous you said: "You wrote “[i]f it can be proven that evolution is true and that it is responsible for the origin and diversification of species then that would falsify Intelligent Design.” However, IDists could simply say that evolution is the mechanism which the “Designer” chose to use. Also, i feel that you may be saying “evolution” when you mean abiogenesis (theory that life arose from non-living matter)." No I mean evolution. Wasn't Darwin's book called "Origin of Species"? He didn't get into the origin of the first life but he does try to explain the origin and diversification of the various species. Also many people do say that evolution is the mechanism that God uses, many religious people say that in their attack on ID. Intelligent Design scientists put forth the argument that there are no natural mechanisms which can explain how the diversity of life has come to exist. They say that evolutionary theory has failed miserably. They say that evolutionary theory is incapable of being reconciled with the facts we have learned about how biological systems actually work and with the fossil record. If they are ever proven wrong then you can gloat about how people may react to that, until then...welcome to the real world.mentok
December 3, 2005
December
12
Dec
3
03
2005
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
Hi, mentok. Some responses to your points: You write: "My point is that what I have heard repeated by evolution activists is that “ID is not falsifiable because it invokes God and therefore it is not scientific”. That is a canard and a ploy to discredit the arguments which they cannot disprove from ID scientists." There are plenty of evolutionists who don't hesitate to engage ID proponents on claims that ARE falsifiable. Two cases are Ken Miller (on purported instances of irreducible complexity in biology) and Mark Perakh (on the reliability of Bill Dembski's explanatory filter in identifying instances of design). These guys are not hiding behind the falsifiability objection. You then offer the following as a way to falsify ID's designer claim: "If it can be proven that evolution is true and that it is responsible for the origin and diversification of species then that would falsify Intelligent Design." The problem is that science can never prove any theory, which after all is why the concept of falsification is so important. So again, I invite you to describe a specific scientific observation which would falsify the existence of an omnipotent designer, keeping in mind that such a designer is perfectly capable of creating any possible world, including one with the appearance of undirected evolution, if for some inscrutable reason it wants to.keiths
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
mentok: You wrote "[i]f it can be proven that evolution is true and that it is responsible for the origin and diversification of species then that would falsify Intelligent Design." However, IDists could simply say that evolution is the mechanism which the "Designer" chose to use. Also, i feel that you may be saying "evolution" when you mean abiogenesis (theory that life arose from non-living matter).infamous
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Keiths you wrote: "Not true. It is my honest opinion (and the opinion of many others) that, to the extent that it allows for the possibility of an omnipotent designer, ID is not falsifiable. If you disagree, perhaps you could offer an example of a scientific observation that would falsify the existence of such a designer, rather than simply labeling us all as “desparate [sic].”" Yet you just claimed that many aspects of ID are falsifiable. My point is that what I have heard repeated by evolution activists is that "ID is not falsifiable because it invokes God and therefore it is not scientific". That is a canard and a ploy to discredit the arguments which they cannot disprove from ID scientists. It's desperate as far as I am concerned. I see that the refusal of scientists in their boycott of court cases on that very basis or their attempt to re-assign ID to religious studies in universities to be a sign of their desperation. Since they can't adeqautely defend their positions on evolution when confronted by ID scientists then they try to discredit ID as being "unscientific" and tell everyone it's just "creationism" with a fancy name. If it can be proven that evolution is true and that it is responsible for the origin and diversification of species then that would falsify Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design say that we can prove that Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution is impossible. If evolutionists can't prove that to be false then why do they claim that the arguments for an Intelligent Designer are not acceptable? Occams razor comes to mind here. If one theory is proven to be impossible then why is the only alternative dismissed as irrelevant? It's anti-science to argue in that fashion. It is an argument against a designer from the materialistic ontological world view, not from science. And it leads to banging your head against the wall. You tell people that science is the answer. And then when science leads to a conclusion which science cannot analyze because it is beyond their measuring power, then that conclusion must be rejected? When ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise?mentok
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Hi, mentok. You wrote: "ID makes no judgement on the posiible powers or attributes of the designer..." That is precisely the problem. By allowing the possibility of an omnipotent designer, ID makes its fundamental inference unfalsifiable. Any possible world can be explained by recourse to an omnipotent designer. You then wrote: "In Kazahkstan we have joke..." I would only reply that in Kazakhstan they know how to spell "Kazakhstan." Further, you wrote: "There may be specific theories within linguistics which are not falsifiable (e.g proto indo european theory) but you wouldn’t say that the entire field of linguistics is unscientific because some linguistic theory which is accepted by the mainstream is not falsifiable." True, which is why the final paragraph of my post said that "...many of the specific claims made by ID proponents are in fact falsifiable. The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is such a claim." And finally, you wrote: "The whole notion of falsifiability is a canard used by desparate people who have failed to prove ID wrong, therefore ID is not falsifiable in their views." Not true. It is my honest opinion (and the opinion of many others) that, to the extent that it allows for the possibility of an omnipotent designer, ID is not falsifiable. If you disagree, perhaps you could offer an example of a scientific observation that would falsify the existence of such a designer, rather than simply labeling us all as "desparate [sic]."keiths
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Hi, SteveB. You wrote: "So, if we were to take your quotation and substitute “natural process” for “designer” we would get the following: “A sufficiently powerful natural process could literally create any world it wanted to. Nothing that science finds by studying the material world could disprove the existence of such a natural process, since it is always possible to argue that whatever science finds, “the natural process made it that way.”" The difference is that while ID does not characterize (or place any limits on) the designer, neo-Darwinian theory does place limits on the natural process of evolution. Thus neo-Darwinism could be falsified by any of the following: 1. Haldane's famous example of "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." 2. The discovery of an entirely different genetic code in, say, domestic cats vs. ocelots. 3. An extremely low mutation rate of, say, one nucleotide per hundred million years. 4. A complete lack of correlation between phylogenies based on phenetic vs. molecular homologies. ...and many more.keiths
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
keiths you wrote: "When critics of ID say that it is not falsifiable, they generally mean the following: A sufficiently powerful designer (and especially an omnipotent one) could literally create any world it wanted to. Nothing that science finds by studying the material world could disprove the existence of such a designer, since it is always possible to argue that whatever science finds, “the designer made it that way.”" If evolutionists want to call theology non falsifiable that is fine. But ID is not theology. You conflate ID and theology in the above statement. ID makes no judgement on the posiible powers or attributes of the designer, ID is solely interested in presenting the unbiased presentation of the data which Darwinists claim supports evolution ipso facto. If Darwinists want to hide behind epistemological mommies skirts, so be it. keiths then you wrote: "As currently promulgated, ID even logically allows for the following perverse scenario: If the designer had a whimsical streak, it could create a universe in which evolution never happened, but the appearance of evolution was so overwhelming as to convince everyone, including the entire membership of the Discovery Institute." In Kazahkstan we have joke; There is..ah..chair..uh..the chair..eh uh..walk..uh..uh witha shoes..la la la la la, he walk on the street, the chair is a walking HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! keiths you then wrote: "For this reason, ID is not falsifiable as long as it simply points to a designer while failing to pin down the characteristics of the designer to some extent" Is a field of research like say, linguistics, "non falsifiable"? That would be the incorrect use of the concept of non falsifiablity in the scientific context. There may be specific theories within linguistics which are not falsifiable (e.g proto indo european theory) but you wouldn't say that the entire field of linguistics is unscientific because some linguistic theory which is accepted by the mainstream is not falsifiable. ID is a scientific field of research. It is not confined to a single theory nor is it an epistemological approach. The attempt to discredit ID by calling it non falsifiable is ironic since so many evolution activists are spending so much time trying to prove ID's claims are indeed false. The whole notion of falsifiability is a canard used by desparate people who have failed to prove ID wrong, therefore ID is not falsifiable in their views. But evolution is no different when using the same standards as to what is acceptable as scientific.mentok
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
SteveB you wrote: "“We were created by an intelligent agent” vs., “We arose by purely materialistic, natural processes”–are philosophical statements, and as such, can never be proved or falsified." Those aren't necessarily philosophical statements. They have to be taken within the context they are used. If you are making your argument from the result of scientifically acquired data and processes, then your conclusion is part of the scientific process. You have a theory, some data, research and processing of the data, then you have your conclusion which supports or rejects the initial theory. That is a common method used by scientists. If your theory is Intelligent Design and you use the scientific method and your conclusion is the requirment of an Intelligent Designer then that is not philosophy, it is a scientific theory. It's philosophy when you make no scientific study and try to make the case on a purely hypothetical or epistemological basis. The same can be said of evolutionary theory. When the argument for it is based on the scientific method then it can be considered scientific, when the argument for it is based on philosophy ( e.g there is no God ergo evolution is true) then it can be considered philosophy. Unfortunately the basis for the attack on ID and the fanatic defense of Darwinism is philosophically based.mentok
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
keiths: On the macro level, my fundamental objection to the neodarwinian falsifiability objection is not that it doesn’t have some validity, but that it isn’t consistently applied (like I said before, I think neither view is falsifiable). So, if we were to take your quotation and substitute "natural process" for "designer" we would get the following: "A sufficiently powerful natural process could literally create any world it wanted to. Nothing that science finds by studying the material world could disprove the existence of such a natural process, since it is always possible to argue that whatever science finds, "the natural process made it that way."" And this sort of conclusion is typically what happens in neodarwinian circles. The theory ends up “predicting” pretty much whatever it finds. Convenient. But not very scientific.SteveB
December 2, 2005
December
12
Dec
2
02
2005
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
When critics of ID say that it is not falsifiable, they generally mean the following: A sufficiently powerful designer (and especially an omnipotent one) could literally create any world it wanted to. Nothing that science finds by studying the material world could disprove the existence of such a designer, since it is always possible to argue that whatever science finds, "the designer made it that way." As currently promulgated, ID even logically allows for the following perverse scenario: If the designer had a whimsical streak, it could create a universe in which evolution never happened, but the appearance of evolution was so overwhelming as to convince everyone, including the entire membership of the Discovery Institute. For this reason, ID is not falsifiable as long as it simply points to a designer while failing to pin down the characteristics of the designer to some extent. Having said that, many of the specific claims made by ID proponents are in fact falsifiable. The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is such a claim. If a subset of the flagellar system has a useful function, as Miller and others argue for the Type III secretory system, then this specific claim is falsified. (Note that this argument does not depend on whether the Type III secretory system is claimed to be part of the evolutionary pathway leading to the flagellum.)keiths
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
DaveScot: 1) What do left-wing politics and the war in Iraq have to do with this post? Once again you are off topic and not productive, yet you have not been expelled from the site. 2) Concerning global warming/continental cooling: The Gulf Stream draws warm water up from the south and the prevailing winds carry the heat which in turn warms a large portion of the world. Global warming melts polar ice caps which dumps large amounts of fresh water into the salty North Atlantic. This makes the water less salty, and therefore less dense. This in turn weakens the current because the less dense water doesnt sink as quickly, so warm water is not drawn up. Therefore global warming can cause continental cooling. Sorry i didnt take the time to explain this more clearly, but i dont care to take the time. For more information, you can find it here: http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.htmlinfamous
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
I’m inclined to agree with Bethell in National Review. Both theories are unfalsifiable, because both are philosophy, not science. Yes, there is science to support one conclusion or the other, and yes, I think ID’s philosophical arguments are the more persuasive, but in the end the grand claims of both world views--“We were created by an intelligent agent” vs., “We arose by purely materialistic, natural processes”--are philosophical statements, and as such, can never be proved or falsified. And adherents on both sides of the divide make the mistake of overplaying the hand that they have been dealt. Evolutionists admittedly, are usually the worst such offenders, when they point to the likes of moth coloration, finch beaks, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria and consequently trumpet the “fact of (macro)evolution.” But IDers do it too. Consider the comments of a previous poster: “Behe spent time on the stand in Dover positing the knocking out of a motor mechanism in a bacteria and then after 20-40,000 generations see if it will somehow come up with a competitive advantage to start to move.” So what? First of all, I’m assuming that this was hypothetical argument and not an actual experiment. But even if it was actually performed, if after these 40,000 generations it still hadn’t started to move, what conclusions could we draw? Of course, faithful IDers will doubtless say, “See!” (as I’m sure many on this blog will...) and committed evolutionists “So?... maybe 40,000 generations isn’t long enough; maybe the conditions weren’t right; maybe Jupiter hadn’t aligned with Mars...” Such an experiment might provide support for one view or the other, it might tip the scales a little, but it wouldn’t prove (or falsify) anything, because the claims of both views are outside the realm of what a man in a lab coat--given his finite nature and ~80 year life span--can ever hope to measure in any definitive way.SteveB
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
"George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: "The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable."...."This is true; but he should have added that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not falsifiable either." Actually, ID is falsifiable. People like Ken Miller have cited work by Barry Hall on the evolution of a lactose-utilizing system in E. coli, or Russell Doolittle’s citation of work on the double knock-out of genes in blood clotting. Behe spent time on the stand in Dover positing the knocking out of a motor mechanism in a bacteria and then after 20-40,000 generations see if it will somehow come up with a competitive advantage to start to move. Ironically, while naturalists say ID is not falsifiable, they are citing works because they see them as ways to falsify ID. Unfortunately for them the tests didn’t yield what they had hoped, but they were certainly plausible tests to make. Had the blood clotting study actually improved the state of the mice, that would be a fairly lethal blow to ID in terms of the blodd clotting mechanism. In fact, the funny thing is, Miller probably has the best definition for falsifying ID: “use the tools of molecular genetics to wipe out an existing multi-part system and then see if evolution can come to the rescue with a system to replace it”. Those are falsifiable tests. The problem is, none of the tests have worked in favor of the other side.ajl
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
"In my book, I quote Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, telling a professional audience at the American Museum in New York that there was "not one thing" he knew about evolution. He had asked the evolutionary-morphology seminar at the University of Chicago if there was anything they knew about it, and, he said: "The only answer I got was silence." All's i got to say is Amen to that brother!, Amen! :) If more people were honest doing "Science" we could actually get the cure for the common cold -IMO [BARF] :) CharlieCharliecrs
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Speaking of global warming, apparently global warming causes continental cooling. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1654803,00.html?gusrc=rss So it's a global warming before it's a global cooling. That fits perfectly with left wing thinking such as "I voted for the war before I voted against the war." :-) And they wonder why we mock them...DaveScot
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply