Intelligent Reasoning

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

Friday, February 06, 2015

Earth to Allan Miller- ID is Falsifiable

-
Over on TSZ Allan Miller spewed:

Blas, there is a difference between unfalsifiable and unfalsified. ID is unfalsifiable. Evolution has yet to be falsified.

LoL! ID has said exactly what will falsify it. OTOH evolutionism can't even be tested. Allan's willful ignorance, while amusing, doesn't mean anything.

To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can produce what ID claims requires and intelligent agency. Just because you can't do such a thing doesn't mean ID is not falsifiable.

2 Comments:

  • At 8:18 AM, Blogger Allan Miller said…

    Wrong. Proving that evolution could do X would not falsify ID. There is no causal dichotomy, such that demonstration of the capacity of one automatically precludes the other. ID can do anything, including those things that could also be done by evolution.

    To illustrate, any evolutionary result could in principle be produced by genetic engineering, including Lenski (by some elaborate subterfuge). The determined ID advocate can simply keep insisting, regardless of all evidence brought, that the genetic change was not evolutionary. So ID is not falsifiable.

     
  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Proving that unguided evolution could produce CSI and IC would falsify ID as ID claims that unguided evolution cannot do those things.

    ALL of the ID leaders say that Allan.

    ID is NOT anti-evolution. You don't even know what ID is nor what it claims.

    Here it is for you:

    ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (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.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

    As Dr Behe said

    In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

    How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.

    You lose, Allan.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home