Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, January 23, 2006

More thoughts on falsifying ID

Intelligent Design is based on three premises (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

Refute any of those premises and ID, as it currently stands, falls, just as any tripod would if one of its legs gets removed (and nothing replaces it).

So if it was demonstrated that life could arise from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes, ie "blind watchmaker-type" processes, Dr. Behe's criteria for IC as well as Dr. Dembski's criteria for CSI would be met, and Occam's Razor would neatly slice off the requirement for an intelligent agency.

However is "falsification" really a way to detect "good" science from "bad" science? I will explore that in another blog entry... (for example how can we "falsify" the premise that humans "evolved" from non-humans via some blind-watchmaker-type process? yet that premise is being promoted as scientific)

It should also be noted that the three premises point to the fact that ID is based on positive data, coupled with a negative. Which refutes the anti-ID notion that ID is only based on negative data.

2 Comments:

  • At 10:14 PM, Blogger Red Reader said…

    "Refute any of those premises and ID, as it currently stands, falls, just as any tripod would if one of its legs gets removed (and nothing replaces it)."

    Good point.

    And unlike theories that are described in such a way as to be irrefutable, at least premises #1 & #2 are "self-evident".

    #3 requires more observation. If a tornado ever goes through a junk yard and creates a 747, then ID is out the window.

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Self-evident indeed.

    All #3 refers to is what I have been saying all along- the best way to falsify/ refute ID (for "those guys") is by substantiating the claims made by the "anti-ID position". Those claims being that life arose from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes and its subsequent diversity arose solely via those type of processes- ie "blind watchmaker-type" processes.

    IOW "they" should do the experiment Dr. Behe recommended- that being to "evolve" a flagellum. If IDists did the experiment and the population, no matter much much variation was recorded, never "obtained" a flagella the critics would scream we didn't do it correctly- IOW we made it fail.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home