Difference between revisions of "Testability of intelligent design"
From Conservapedia
m (redo link) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Phillip E. Johnson]] told [[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 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. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html] | :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 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. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html] | ||
Revision as of 18:59, December 28, 2009
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]
