Thursday, November 10, 2005

This needs a good fisking

TCS: Tech Central Station - Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

So full of errors and bias I'm amazed that Glenn linked to it.

3 comments:

peterp6 said...

It's funny how the falsifiability argument only seems to work one way.

Although the author of the article was correct to point out the pseudoscience of Marx and Freud, the Just So stories of many Darwinian evolutionists continually go unchallenged. Talk about something that's unfalsifiable!

At the same time, intelligent designers are told that their theory isn't science because it isn't falsifiable. Unfortunately for critics of intelligent design, simply declaring a theory "unfalsifiable" is not the same as that theory actually BEING unfalsifiable.

I would say with William Dembski that "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 in 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."

Just because the evidence points strongly in the direction of a particular theory (i.e., intelligent design) doesn't mean that that theory is "unfalsifiable." It just means that that particular theory is unlikely to be falsified.

Pete-Detroit said...

1) Darwinian processes aren't always gradual. Catastrophic environmental pressures bring on dramatic mutations, some of which will be viable - and VERY different than the parents.
2) is "falsifyability" either necessary or sufficient for the definition of "Science"?
3) ID, like creationism, predicates the existance of a 'higher power' that takes an active role in creation/evolution - clearly a faith-based point of view. As such, it has NO place in public school. I suppose my point of view is different than most folks - I am very aware that there are many people in my city that would LOVE to have more religion taught in public school - unfortunately this is a religion that supports oppression of women, genital mutilation, polygamy, "honor" killings, suicide bombers and global jihad. If we open the door to one, we open it to all, I'm thinking. And that's one door I do NOT want opened. ID, like Astrology, Phrenology, Alchemy, and other such "scientific" subjects may well be worth of study. But not in public school, not with my tax dollars.

Corrie said...

The notion that only random, blind, mechanistic chance is also a faith-based predicate. Faith is simply belief in the absense of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of reasonable doubt about the mechanism behind macro-evolution. But only one faith is permitted to be taught in school.