Difference between revisions of "Testability of intelligent design"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
PaulDiFoglio (talk | contribs) (fixing internal links, setting up reference list, adding to see also) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) m (→top: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.pbs.org → https://www.pbs.org) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Phillip E. Johnson]] told [[NOVA (PBS)|NOVA]]: | [[Phillip E. Johnson]] told [[NOVA (PBS)|NOVA]]: | ||
| − | :"''It is sometimes said that the hypothesis that there is a [[Intelligent Designer|designer]] is untestable. This is false. It is testable, and the test is [[Darwinian evolution]]. The claim of the evolutionary [[biology|biologists]] is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false.''"<ref> | + | :"''It is sometimes said that the hypothesis that there is a [[Intelligent Designer|designer]] is untestable. This is false. It is testable, and the test is [[Darwinian evolution]]. The claim of the evolutionary [[biology|biologists]] is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false.''"<ref>https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html</ref> |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Latest revision as of 22:37, April 9, 2019
Phillip E. Johnson told NOVA:
- "It is sometimes said that the hypothesis that there is a designer is untestable. This is false. It is testable, and the test is Darwinian evolution. The claim of the evolutionary biologists is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false."[1]