6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 598:
Line 598: + +
→Double Standard
::I've written plenty about the [[falsifiability of evolution]] on the relevant page. Intelligent design as a theory is not falsifiable because it's built on a negation; the theory essentially states that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed. However, the fact that we do not currently understand how an organism evolved does not preclude us from figuring it out in the future, so lack of understanding = evidence of design is a false tautology. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 18:18, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::I've written plenty about the [[falsifiability of evolution]] on the relevant page. Intelligent design as a theory is not falsifiable because it's built on a negation; the theory essentially states that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed. However, the fact that we do not currently understand how an organism evolved does not preclude us from figuring it out in the future, so lack of understanding = evidence of design is a false tautology. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 18:18, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::Johnson (or someone) is wrong. No thing can ever be proven to be 100% true under every known condition and unknown condition. This is why falsification is so important to Bacon and to science. A theory has to be able to be wrong. Intelligent Design doesn't set this boundary. Even if every organism on Earth has a proven lineage, there's no stopping someone from arguing that an intelligence designed it to appear evolved. This article notably skips falsification when mentioning Bacon yet falsification is featured on the evolution page. It is very important that Intelligent Design be made falsifiable and is one of the major barriers to it being considered science. [[User:Darkghost|Darkghost]] 13:05 30 May 2009 (EDT)
:Could you please provide a source for the analysis which boils down ID to the "essential statement" that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed? I've heard that objection so many times that I'm sure there's some famous author we can credit for it.
:Could you please provide a source for the analysis which boils down ID to the "essential statement" that if we can't figure out a plausible way that an organism evolved, it must have been designed? I've heard that objection so many times that I'm sure there's some famous author we can credit for it.
:Meanwhile, I think we should retain the claim of ID that "some living things are so complex that they show signs of being designed", which rests on the "take out one part and the machine breaks" argument of [[Irreducible Complexity]]. Just to be fair, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:Meanwhile, I think we should retain the claim of ID that "some living things are so complex that they show signs of being designed", which rests on the "take out one part and the machine breaks" argument of [[Irreducible Complexity]]. Just to be fair, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)