Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

Is ID falsifiable?

By Karl Popper's definition of falsifiability in his book 'Conjectures and Refutations' it is absolutely falsifiable-- at least as falsifiable as Darwinian Evolution. For instance, show that Behe's irreducibly complex machines evolved by Darwinian mechanisms, and his theory of irreducible complexity is successfully refuted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Lol, citing the discovery institute, who's primary agenda is getting creationism(excuse me, "intelligent design") in public schools.

Flying spaghetti monster principle.

Citing evolutionists who rallied to keep intelligent design out of school, and evolution in without criticism... I guess they can't be trusted because of their agenda either.

If you're going to rely on 'attack the man' debating tactics, at least be consistent.

 

[Roustabout]

Is ID falsifiable?

Most proponents say it is. However, what I've found in this discussion is that those who say it is not are conflating terms just like we've seen in this thread. Such as conflating creationism to ID. It is odd how those who think they are defending 'science' resort to rhetoric and sketchy debate tactics when discussing the issue. I'd say, just read back through the thread or keep your eyes peeled for coming retorts for evidence of this.

If you are going to say what something isn't, then you ought to first have a grip on what that something is arguing for in the first place. Or, you can act like a religious nut and regurgitate talking points, and submit to the infallible papal authority. (I believe it because science said so.) Reification at its finest, with lab coats being the new priestly robes..

Is Intelligent Design Testable?: Dembski, William A.

http://www.discovery.org/f/494

 

[rjd970]

Most proponents say it is. However, what I've found in this discussion is that those who say it is not are conflating terms just like we've seen in this thread. Such as conflating creationism to ID. It is odd how those who think they are defending 'science' resort to rhetoric and sketchy debate tactics when discussing the issue. I'd say, just read back through the thread or keep your eyes peeled for coming retorts for evidence of this.

If you are going to say what something isn't, then you ought to first have a grip on what that something is arguing for in the first place. Or, you can act like a religious nut and regurgitate talking points, and submit to the infallible papal authority. (I believe it because science said so.) Reification at its finest, with lab coats being the new priestly robes..

Is Intelligent Design Testable?: Dembski, William A.

http://www.discovery.org/f/494

By Karl Popper's definition of falsifiability in his book 'Conjectures and Refutations' it is absolutely falsifiable-- at least as falsifiable as Darwinian Evolution. For instance, show that Behe's irreducibly complex machines evolved by Darwinian mechanisms, and his theory of irreducible complexity is successfully refuted.

So it is falsifiable by proving Darwinian evolution?

From the link Roust posted:

FALSIFIABILITY: Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I find it interesting that evolutionists generally claim that ID is both on-refutable, and refuted. Richard Dawkins wrote "The Blind Watchmaker" as proof that universe and all that is in it was not designed, while also critiquing the theory of ID as non-falsifiable.

lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

So it is falsifiable by proving Darwinian evolution?

From the link Roust posted:

That is a problem?

 

[rjd970]

Selective quoting... Also from the same paper, on the first page no less...

WTF are you talking about? That says the same thing I quoted. I'm simply asking if the only way to falsify ID is to prove Darwinism.

How is this a difficult question?

 

[Orange_Crush]

WTF are you talking about? That says the same thing I quoted. I'm simply asking if the only way to falsify ID is to prove Darwinism.

How is this a difficult question?

I realized that and edited. I guess what I'm getting at is to ask why it is a problem to ask for naturalistic mechanism to disprove design.

 

[rjd970]

I realized that and edited. I guess what I'm getting at is to ask why it is a problem to ask for naturalistic mechanism to disprove design.

Jesus dude. All I'm asking is if the position here is the only way to disprove ID is to prove Darwin.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Jesus dude. All I'm asking is if the position here is the only way to disprove ID is to prove Darwin.

They are competing, diametrically opposing theories, so I would say that's probably pretty accurate.

 

[rjd970]

They are competing, diametrically opposing theories, so I would say that's probably pretty accurate.

Do you think that is the only way to falsify Darwin (ie... prove ID)?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Do you think that is the only way to falsify Darwin (ie... prove ID)?

I wouldn't think so. Dawkins has said misplaced fossils would disprove DE to him. I'm skeptical of the claim, but he made it.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Jesus dude. All I'm asking is if the position here is the only way to disprove ID is to prove Darwin.

ID says, "We theorize a designer had to have done this." The refutation would obviously be to show that a designer was not needed to accomplish the evidence that the claims for design are made about. Evolution claims that DE is by purely natural forces and completely unguided-- to be honest, I'm not sure how one would disprove that except to prove that a designer was at work.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Citing evolutionists who rallied to keep intelligent design out of school, and evolution in without criticism... I guess they can't be trusted because of their agenda either.

If you're going to rely on 'attack the man' debating tactics, at least be consistent.

Why would intelligent design even be in school?

 

[Roustabout]

Why would intelligent design even be in school?

Why would it not?
DNA is a language. I can give you hundreds of examples that show language (spoken, computer, etc.) requires a programmer (mind) and not unguided, unintelligent processes. I can also give millions of examples of how function requires conception, forethought and design.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Why would it not?
DNA is a language. I can give you hundreds of examples that show language (spoken, computer, etc.) requires a programmer (mind) and not unguided, unintelligent processes. I can also give millions of examples of how function requires conception, forethought and design.

So it would be acceptable to teach intelligent design with a Daoism flavor? Or use Scientology's creation myth as a back drop?

And hundreds of examples based on what? Proof? Or more allegory?

 

[Orange_Crush]

So it would be acceptable to teach intelligent design with a Daoism flavor? Or use Scientology's creation myth as a back drop?

And hundreds of examples based on what? Proof? Or more allegory?

You should study that which you argue against. ID does not propose who the designer was. It leaves that to theology.

 

[FLVOL_79]

You should study that which you argue against. ID does not propose who the designer was. It leaves that to theology.

I can't argue with that but in the USA the intelligent design crowd tends to lean towards the Christian creation myth.

My feeling is that religious teachings should occur outside of the school and by the parents. It's part of parenting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can't argue with that but in the USA the intelligent design crowd tends to lean towards the Christian creation myth.

My feeling is that religious teachings should occur outside of the school and by the parents. It's part of parenting.

You should study more. The american "intelligent design crowd" states specifically that discussion of who the designer is should be left out of the scientific discussions. They leave it to philosophy and theology to query the implications.

 

[Vol8188]

You should study that which you argue against. ID does not propose who the designer was. It leaves that to theology.

So all you want is for the teacher to say "some people believe that a supreme being is responsible for this." Nothing else? Sounds like an easy curriculm.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So all you want is for the teacher to say "some people believe that a supreme being is responsible for this." Nothing else? Sounds like an easy curriculm.

I think one should leave "supreme being" out of it if it were to come to school curriculums. It should suffice to teach intelligent design theory alongside darwinian evolution.

 

[Vol8188]

I think one should leave "supreme being" out of it if it were to come to school curriculums. It should suffice to teach intelligent design theory alongside darwinian evolution.

Wait, what? What exactly do you want taught about intelligent design? What is there to teach and how do you teach that without mentioning a supreme being?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wait, what? What exactly do you want taught about intelligent design? What is there to teach and how do you teach that without mentioning a supreme being?

If you want to oppose it, study it.

It doesn't necessitate a supreme being to theorize that there are structures that could not have been produced by Darwinian evolution.

 

[Vol8188]

If you want to oppose it, study it.

It doesn't necessitate a supreme being to theorize that there are structures that could not have been produced by Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design does not necessitate a supreme being? Then who designed it?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Intelligent design does not necessitate a supreme being? Then who designed it?

Maybe your flying spaghetti monster. Maybe the ancient aliens that funny-haired guy on the history channel always talks about. You can recognize design without knowing who the designer is.