Talk:Intelligent design/Falsification

Falsification

FYI: I believe that the initial question that started this thread has been resolved. Rikurzhen

Rikurzhen wrote:

the claim that natural selection is not sufficient to explain biological complexity is a scientific hypothesis, which has been falsified.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that science has "proven" that natural selection is sufficient to explain biological complexity? Or are you making the weaker claim that "biologists in general reject ID's arguments about irreducible complexity?

At the very least I can say that biologist reject ID arguments about irreducible complexity. But specifically, I was saying that whenever the claim that a certain case of biological complexity is irreducible has been considered, it has been falsified. In any other circumstance, this pattern of consistent falsification would be considered reason to doubt all similar claims. For example, if you tell me that a pile of pebbles is too heavy to move and then I move it, and then you say that another pile is too heavy and I move that just as easily, and so on. Eventually, we should agree that moving any pile of pebbles is well within my power. Likewise with biological complexity and the power of natural seleciton. I hope that you keep in mind that in almost any science, this kind of argument is considered sufficient to reject one hypothesis when a strong(er) alternative is available. --Rikurzhen 18:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

<<whenever the claim that a certain case of biological complexity is irreducible has been considered, it has been falsified>>

Falsified? So when ID says that a particular biological structure could not have developed step by step, some scientists have indeed developed that structure step by step? Interesting. Could you quote some examples of such step by step development? Philip J. Rayment 12:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, IC can be achieved by evolution, there is no need to hypothesise a designer.

• http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Some_systems_are_irreducibly_complex
• http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Bacterial_flagella_are_irreducibly_complex
• http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Blood_clotting_is_irreducibly_complex
• http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Protein_transport_within_a_cell_is_irreducibly_complex
• http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Immune_system_is_irreducibly_complex

There should be ample research material for you in the references and further reading sections there, though I could carry on?. --Steinsky 13:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not to mention that assuming a designer violates Occam's Razor.--FM 08:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Most of these were story-telling. There was no falsification by demonstrating gradual development, just as I said. A story about how it might have happened differently is not falsification. By the way, your bias is showing. To rephrase your first line, No, IC can be achieved by a designer, there is no need to hypothesise order arising from randomness. In fact I would suggest that in this case Occams Razor supports the designer idea! Philip J. Rayment 15:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Even if what you claim were so, and I'm not granting that it is, how do ID proponents and their imputed designer avoid Occam's Razor? Clearly a naturalistic explanation will always be preferable to a supernatural one, and ID falls flat when it comes to presenting a cogent naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe, as well as that of life.--FM 08:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<Clearly a naturalistic explanation will always be preferable to a supernatural one...>>

Why? Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because naturalistic explanations are testable, supernatural explanations by definition are not. If you needed me to explain that to you, then you don't know science or its methodology nearly as well as you'd like us to believe.--FM 23:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However, that's actually a logical fallacy. A naturalistic explanation may be testable, but that doesn't make it true. The unttestable supernatural explanation may very well be the correct one; but this is wholly unknowable. As such it is a point of faith, and not science, which, if we know our Latin, clearly deals with that which we know. That is, while we cannot say what is "true", scientific explanations must be naturalistic. Graft 02:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, science has a well established epistemology, so we can rest easy in the knowledge that the sun will shine tomorrow while the philosophers argue over just want knowledge is. However, keep in mind that many people (rightly or wrongly) believe that divine revelation is a justification for belief. Naturalistic explanations are preferable in science because we don't accept divine revelation as a justification for belief in science. --Rikurzhen 06:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I never said all naturalistic explanations are true, I said they are preferred and the fact that they can be tested makes them preferable to supernatural explanations that require faith and magical thinking. To justify that line of reasoning, Can you think of one instance of a supernatural explanation having been shown to be the right explanation? Supernatural events cannot or are unlikely to occur. Some, if not all, theological claims made by religions are unsupportable by scientific means. Sir Karl Popper's influential Conjectures and Refutations argues that the strength of a hypothesis depends on how many ways it could be proven false. Hypotheses inherently incapable of falsification can only be compared on the basis of general principles such as Occam's Razor. Fundamental supernatural hypotheses are difficult to define, let alone test. Any scientific hypothesis worthy of the title "theory" is supported by a complex web of observations and tests that might have falsified it but did not. A supernatural hypothesis provides no such basis for belief.--FeloniousMonk 16:45, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<Because naturalistic explanations are testable, supernatural explanations by definition are not.>>

I'm not sure what you mean. So let's try an example. A naturalistic explanation might be that "the sun came before the Earth". A supernatural explanation might be that "the Earth was created before the sun". How is one testable and the other not?

<<Can you think of one instance of a supernatural explanation having been shown to be the right explanation?>>

Both natural selection and continental movement were described by creationists before being accepted by the wider scientific community, to pick two examples off the top of my head.

Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. The intelligent design claim is that by reason alone we think that existing biological system could not have been built from individual steps. Thus, this can be refuted by reason alone in offering an explanation of how such systems could indeed have come into existence. If someone claims that X is impossible, all that is needed to refute that claim is to offer a single example of how X could be possible. That is why I said that claims that natural selection is not sufficient to produce biological complexity has been falsified. --Rikurzhen 18:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

<<If someone claims that X is impossible, all that is needed to refute that claim is to offer a single example of how X could be possible.>>

That depends on how good the example is. Stories of how the eye could have evolved gradually fall far short of being realistic. A proper falsification is to produce evidence, not a story. Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you aware that your claim re: eye evolution is an outright lie? --Steinsky 19:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, else I wouldn't have cited it. Why do you think it's a lie? Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In this case, a story will do, since the "proof" in the first place was hardly rigorous. Irreducible complexity merely says "This situation could not have been the result of evolution." Showing a plausible mechanism whereby that situation could have been the result of evolution renders that statement incorrect.

Also, I wish you people would leave the eye alone. Pick a better example. Not only did the eye evolve, it evolved independently in dozens of different species. It's incredibly easy for eyes to evolve. Graft 18:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning: The eye evolved, many times. Therefore it must be easy to evolve. If it evolves so easy, why do people dispute that it evolved? Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh Jeez, not that tired old straw man again. The citing of the eye as an evidence of design, but not evolution, 1) is specious, 2) shows a poor understanding of both subject and basic biology, 3) makes hasty a conclusion; even if at this point in time the theory of evolution could not account for how eyes developed, that does not mean it won't be able to later. BTW...If the eye is designed, why was it designed with so many flaws? Please, don't waste our time with these outdated, poorly conceived rebuttals.--FM 23:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) Why? 2) How? 3) So you have faith that evolution will be able to explain it? BTW) Not that tired old argument again! See [1] and [2]. Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand Occam's Razor. The razor does not support hypotheses for which there is no evidence. I am not biased when I say there is no reason to hypothesise a designer, rather than saying there is no reason to hypothesise evolution, because there is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution and the mechanisms of evolution, evolution makes predictions and follows the other rules of a scientific theory. There is no reason to hypothesise a designer because not only is there no evidence for a designer, but there is already a well supported theory which explains complex life forms without a designer. --Steinsky 19:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is "no evidence" for a designer. Goo-to-you Evolution makes few if any predictions that can't be incorporated into a creation model, and doesn't follow the normal scientific requirements of observations and repeatability (who observed or repeated the evolution of dinosaurs into birds?).Philip J. Rayment 17:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand what science is. The impossibility of directly observing (with your own eyes) events that occurred in the past does not mean we cannot make informed judgements about what happened. There are marks in the present that allow us to reconstruct the past; this is eminently scientific. Furthermore, the creation model explains NOTHING. See my example above regarding the Bombardier Beetle. If novel genes cannot evolve, do you mean to suggest novel organisms do not arise, and the same fauna that exist today have existed since the dawn of time? Or that they are spontaneously created at random points in time? Where is the weight of evidence backing up either of these claims? If these are not the claims that ID makes, what ARE those claims? They need to be made before ID can be called science. Graft 18:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<Again, you fail to understand what science is. The impossibility of directly observing (with your own eyes) events that occurred in the past does not mean we cannot make informed judgements about what happened.>>

We can make 'informed judgements', but those judgments are coloured by our worldviews, and they are not observable testable. Creationists can make those judgments also, and while you can argue about how good a case each makes, without observation and testing, you cannot accept one as 'science' and write the other off as non-science. Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

<<If novel genes cannot evolve, do you mean to suggest novel organisms do not arise, and the same fauna that exist today have existed since the dawn of time?>>

Essentially, yes, and allowing for variation within the genetic limits (e.g. a canine-type creature has given rise to the varieties of wolves and dogs we have today, but this did not involve new genetic information).

<<Where is the weight of evidence backing up either of these claims?>>

Where is the evidence (e.g. fossils or living transitional forms between major groups, a demonstrated mechanism for producing brand-new genetic information) for the alternative? Majority opinion doesn't count as evidence.

Philip J. Rayment 16:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, a major argument against ID goes like this:

1. If there was a designer, someone must have created the designer.
2. If you can't say who created the designer, you must be wrong.

Sounds like science can sometimes slip the bounds of naturalistic philosophy and make metaphysical arguments. So why can't theologians make arguments about nature too? --Uncle Ed 19:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Parts of the above discussion seem to point out a fundamental difference of approach that prevents any useful conversation between scientists and natural theologians on the topic of ID. As FM stated above "...how do ID proponents and their imputed designer avoid Occam's Razor? Clearly a naturalistic explanation will always be preferable to a supernatural one, and ID falls flat when it comes to presenting a cogent naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe, as well as that of life." As I understand this, the scientific view will always consider preferable an explanation that does not require a designer. In other words, no matter how complicated and inelegant a scientific solution is, it will be preferred over the introduction of superior Being. Occam's Razor will always exclude a creator.

Even if you do believe in a Creator, as I do, you must admit that the scientific endeavor requires the exclusion of the answer "It's that way because God made it that way." Any progress in science requires at least dissatisfaction with that answer.

So, it seems that one of the presuppositions of science excludes a creator. How can we expect science to accept as a solution something that is excluded as a presupposition? It's a simple limitation to the pursuit of science. Some would say that it is the only rational way to pursue science. I'm not sure I'd disagree with them.

What's important is that this presupposition is recognized by everyone involved. When a scientist announces that new findings eliminate the need for a creator, it is really just a restatement of the presuppositions at work. At the same time, those of us who presuppose (i.e. have faith in) a Creator must recognize that presupposition as well. Allow science to continue to delve into the inner workings of creation without thwarting its investigation by insisting that certain questions are answerable only by including a creator. After all, faith does not require scientific proof. -Rholton 16:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're honestly curious in an answer... You should consider your own pre-suppositions. What kind of intelligent designer would be inferred by evidence of design in the natural world? You seem to imply that the evidence would support a supernatural creator. This is the actual place where science would never go -- I'm certain that there will never be evidence good enough for science that demonstrates a supernatural creator. A natural creator on the other hand could be discovered by science. Nonetheless, there currently is no strong evidence for any creator, natural or supernatural. For further reading, consider David Hume on the problem of miracles: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rikurzhen

You are, of course, correct that I have my own presuppositions. That is something that we all bring to any conversation -- and it is often almost impossible to detect your own.

I have read Hume on the problem of miracles. His is an excellent example of exactly the sort of presuppositions that I'm talking about. He states that "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature." He continues, "Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature...There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle; nor can such a proof be destroyed , or the micracle rendered credible, but by an opposite proof, which is superior." (David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1988, pp. 104-5) In other words, everything that happens must be explicable by the laws of nature. But miracles are by definition things that happen against the laws of nature. Therefore, miracles must not happen. It's a neat proof, but it relies entirely on presuppositions.

If you presume that everything that happens must obey the laws of nature, then you will not find anything else. Any observation that contradicts the laws of nature will either be discarded as a false observation, or will result is a reworking of the laws of nature. Extraordinary claims may require extraordinary evidence -- but if extraordinary evidence is provided it will no longer be an extraordinary claim.

The interventionist (Christian or otherwise) insists that not everything follows the laws of nature -- that for example the universe was created as a free choice of the creator, not out of obedience to any natural law or ontological necessity. And that the creator continues to be an active agent within the creation. Are these presuppositions? Yes. But no more so than Hume's.

The problem, IMO, is that any observation is compatible with the unknowable will of a Creator with unknown powers. Therefore science simply can't evaluate claims of a Creator's involvement. Rejecting Creators as scientific explanations is not the result of any supposition: it's flat-out impossible to include them. Any study of such a Creator is going to have to be based on evidence of the existence of the Creator itself, not on observations of things attributed to it. Thus the approach the ID movement is taking is doomed from the outset. Meanwhile, scientists go on explaining whatever they can, and wondering about the stuff they can't.

The endless argument about presuppositions, Philosophical Naturalism, etc., are just red herrings; the real problem is that science can't deal with certain kinds of things. The problem is pragmatic, not philosophical. It is never going to disprove the existence of God any more than it's going to prove it. However, it can and often does disprove specific claims about various Acts of God, such as the oft-claimed global flood. But even if we had discovered that such a flood did happen, it would be impossible to attribute it to God. — B.Bryant 23:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a side note, I will be unable to access the 'net for the next couple days. I should be able to rejoin the conversation on Monday. -Rholton 22:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Supernatural has a discussion of most of these points. --Rikurzhen 00:18, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

<<Allow science to continue to delve into the inner workings of creation without thwarting its investigation by insisting that certain questions are answerable only by including a creator.>>
Fair enough. But also, allow science to continue to delve into the inner workings of creation without thwarting its investigation by insisting that a creator must be excluded from consideration.

<<You seem to imply that the evidence would support a supernatural creator. This is the actual place where science would never go -- I'm certain that there will never be evidence good enough for science that demonstrates a supernatural creator. A natural creator on the other hand could be discovered by science.>>

But wouldn't a creator of nature, if science could discover one, by definition be supernatural?
<<extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence>>
Rholton has correctly pointed out the suppositions involved. What we consider to be "extraordinary" will depend on our suppositions. As one who has the supposition of an omnipotent creator, I find the claim of Him creating the universe not extraordinary at all, but of course it would be to someone who had the supposition of no creator. Similarly, I find the claim of the universe making itself out of nothing for no reason extraordinary, but it isn't for someone who believes in no creator.

<<The problem, IMO, is that any observation is compatible with the unknowable will of a Creator with unknown powers.>>
True. But that is irrelevant to the ID movement (see my next answer). But are far as creation is concerned, that is not what creationists ask you to believe. They say that the will and powers of the creator are knowable. Putting it another way, creationists aren't expecting people to believe in an airy-fairy creator who might have done anything we might propose, but in a specific Creator who did specific recorded things. One of those things, of course, was a world-wide flood, which is acknowledged here as being within the realms of falsification.

<<Any study of such a Creator is going to have to be based on evidence of the existence of the Creator itself, not on observations of things attributed to it. Thus the approach the ID movement is taking is doomed from the outset.>>
But the ID movement is not trying to study the creator. That is not their approach. Rikurzhen said that science could discover a creator. That is all that the ID movement is doing. They are not going beyond that to describe the creator. It is the anti-ID people that assume who the ID movement's 'creator' is, and then reject the ID movement's claims because they don't agree with that answer!

<<the real problem is that science can't deal with certain kinds of things. The problem is pragmatic, not philosophical. It is never going to disprove the existence of God any more than it's going to prove it.>>
Very true. And this is exactly what creationists have been pointing out for years. Science cannot prove nor disprove the creation view nor the evolution view. The creation view is dependent on the assumption of a creator. The evolution view is dependent on the assumption of no creator. Certain aspects of each can be falsified, but the models as a whole are dependent on our presuppositions.
Philip J. Rayment 13:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that the cosmos was created by a supernatural being? It seems you fail to see the difference and significance between natural and supernatural claims.

The entire problem with the creationist's/Intelligent Design proponent's assertions is that they fail to pass The Razor on their most basic level. A naturalistic cosmos with evolution giving rise to complex life on Earth accounts for and better explains all the evidence without assuming a supernatural creator. That makes any appeals to complexity, whether by Paley, Behe or Dembski, moot. Observing nature and insisting it must have been designed is premature; attributing it to God or aliens is an error of reason and of judgment. Falsification remains along with testability (or even something to test for that matter) primary objections to ID/creationism, though truly they are moot because ID assertions have to get in the front door past The Razor first, something ID has consistently failed to do.

I don't think you understand what it is evolution asserts; evolution is not "dependent on the assumption of no creator." It makes no assertions either way as to a creator, and having a creator that put evolution itself into motion is not in excluded from its assertions.

Intelligent design proponents offer no explanation as to how the cosmos or the life within it was created, their only real assertion is that evolution can't explain things. And they're not even up to the task of making that claim, instead using scientific rhetoric to bypass scientific scrutiny.--FeloniousMonk 15:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor? It seems you fail to see the difference between scientific and naturalistic claims. Philip J. Rayment 15:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NO actualy they are not using razor their using Kalam's theory, that nothing can be for an infinite time, everything has to have a begining. How can the big bang spawn from nothiningness? Marcroevolution is not a proven conscept, almost considered psuedoscience itself, yet you analize the Cambrian Explosion through naturalistic eyes? Darwin himself said "nature makes no leaps". How can you prove away dualism, that IS recognized as a theory by many, at the very least. This is ALL pointing at -- 67.174.134.206 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Molecular biology has largely already largely confirmed the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor. You want to read up on it sometime... The fact that evolution could even be confirmed, tested or falsified illustrates the difference betweet it and ID, naturalism and supernaturalism--FeloniousMonk 16:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

That is not a fair response to Mr. Rayment's question, which was Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor? You have switched to a different definition and criteria for falsify. I don't disagree with the substance of your statement: "Molecular biology has largely already confirmed . . . ." But your statement does not even relate to the issue under discussion--which is about the different standards for falsification between the pre-Darwinian naturalists and the post-Darwinian naturalists.

Let me ask Mr. Rayment: What would you expect me to do if I had to falsify the claim that the sun rotates around the earth? ---Rednblu 17:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Further elucidation was unnecessary; considering the lack of understanding of the subject matter on Rayment's part there is little point in my going into detail. Additionally, I'll remind you again of the wikipolicy on drawn out debates of peripheral topics: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis." and that wikipedia is not a battleground for ideologies.

Considering your true identity, long usenet history of anti-evolutionist rants and campaigns and failure to act in good faith here on wikipedia, I'm not about to grant you any faith in your ability to argue this point or any other regarding religion or evolution with any objectively; you are clearly biased and disingenuous.--FeloniousMonk 18:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Mr. Rayment? ---Rednblu 18:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Molecular biology has largely already largely confirmed the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor.>>
This is not a scientific answer, but an answer from authority. As an anti-creationist, you would reject any creationist argument-from-authority, yet that is what you are using here. (And by the way, as always, not all molecular biologists agree.)

<<Additionally, I'll remind you again of the wikipolicy on drawn out debates of peripheral topics: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. ..." and that wikipedia is not a battleground for ideologies.>>
And yet you were the one that raised that debate! Compare the following, the first asked by you, and the second by me:

• Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that the cosmos was created by a supernatural being?
• Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor?

You will notice that the forms of the questions are identical (deliberately). Yet it seems that your question is legitimate, but my question is out of line. Why is that?

<<Let me ask Mr. Rayment: What would you expect me to do if I had to falsify the claim that the sun rotates around the earth?>>
I don't believe that I can answer that particular question, but allow me to make/ask the following comments/questions.

• I am not a geocentrist.
• I'm not certain that can be falsified. You are talking about two moving objects. When you are standing perfectly still, are you moving? With respect to the Earth, no. But as the Earth is moving around the sun, it would also be correct to answer that "yes", you are moving. It depends on what reference frame you are using. What if you were sitting perfectly still on a moving train? Similar answers. You are moving with respect to the Earth, and with respect to the sun, but not with respect to the train. What if the train was moving at a walking pace, and you were walking in the other direction. It could then be that you are moving with respect to the train, but not with respect to the Earth! Is the Earth moving with respect to the sun? Certainly. Is the sun moving with respect to the Earth? Yes, that is also true.
• Is it possible to, for example, calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft through the solar system, using the Earth as a fixed reference point? Although I'm not an expert in this area, I believe that it is.
• Is it easier to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft through the solar system if one uses the sun as a fixed reference point. Again, I believe that it is.
• Was there a reason that you asked this particular question, or in light of these comments would you have rather asked a different question?
• Ignoring all these comments about geocentricity vs. heliocentricity, the difference between your question on one hand and the questions that FeloniousMonk asked and I asked in return on the other hand, is that your question has to do with present-day phenomena that is observable and measurable, whereas his and my questions were to do with unique past events that are not observable nor measurable.
  

Philip J. Rayment 13:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Molecular biology has largely already largely confirmed the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor.>> This is not a scientific answer, but an answer from authority. As an anti-creationist, you would reject any creationist argument-from-authority, yet that is what you are using here. (And by the way, as always, not all molecular biologists agree.)

You're just using my quote out of context. It's not an appeal to authority because in the following sentence which you leave out I direct you to a starting point for you to begin reading up on the subject. Very few who are knowledgeable in molecular biology or even reasonably well-read on the topic would make the claim that there is no evidence for sharing common ancestry.

And yet you were the one that raised that debate! Compare the following, the first asked by you, and the second by me:

Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that the cosmos was created by a supernatural being?

Exactly how would you have us falsify the assertion that all life evolved from a common ancestor? You will notice that the forms of the questions are identical (deliberately). Yet it seems that your question is legitimate, but my question is out of line. Why is that?

Apparently you can not recognize a rhetorical question. A rhetorical question is not made in expectation of an answer, but is made to illustrate a point. And the point of my making that particular rhetorical question is that you cannot ever test, prove, or falsify that the cosmos was created by an supernatural being, so asserting that you can or that it is science is nonsense on its face.

And regarding Rednblu's sideline colloquy about falsifying geocentricism, this is exactly what the Talk pages are not for according to wikipolicy.--FeloniousMonk 17:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<Was there a reason that you asked this particular question, . . . ?>>

Good question. In my opinion, the creationists and the evolutionists seem to disagree on what "falsifiable" means--for the available genetic data and for the available fossil and geologic records. I thought probably there would be some kinds of hypotheses about which the creationists and the evolutionists would agree on what "falsifiable" means. So I was looking for a specific example for which the creationists and evolutionists would agree--with the hope that we could fix that second paragraph of Intelligent design which currently is only a deceptive and irrational advertisement. How about the example from the Falsifiable page where it asks: How would you falsify the statement "All crows are black"? Would you agree with how the Falsifiable page discusses the statement "All crows are black"? ---Rednblu 16:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Apparently both of you are unable to distinguish rhetorical questions....

The topic of falsifiability is largely settled in science, there's no need to redefine it here or refactor it, that is unless you think you can do so in a way to suit your obviousPOV agenda in a way those who insist on NPOV won't notice or object to... Karl Popper's demarcation is clear and uncontroversial:"If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science." His criterion for demarcation draws a precise line between science and non-science, evolution and a naturalistic cosmology qualifying as the former, Intelligent Design and creationism being the latter. I'm not about to watch you conduct another campaign here to redefine science and semantics to favor your POV. Considering your history on the usenet and your clear POV bias and agenda, I don't think you can make the case that you are able to argue here objectively and dispassionately. My position is that Falsification as an issue here is settled and Intelligent Design remains pseudoscience.--FeloniousMonk 17:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Having reread the 2nd paragraph of the article, I find it is accurate as it stands. It is consistent with scientific method, the concept of falsification and its demarcation of science, and accurately represents the views of the scientific community.

I oppose any rewriting of the 2nd paragraph that changes the tone or meaning of the statements made.--FeloniousMonk 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is fine as written from the POV of this scientist. --Rikurzhen 00:12, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

---

Let us go in baby steps.

1. What is the thesis of the second paragraph that you think is falsifiable?
2. How would you falsify it?

Accordingly, the second paragraph of the Intelligent design page is worse than the pseudoscience that you deplore--because you should know better. ---Rednblu 21:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is it that you insist the 2nd paragraph of the article itself be falsifiable? The 2nd paragraph does not posit any theory or hypothesis, so demanding that it too be falsifiable is a red herring. Perhaps we should also insist that all other descriptions or statements of fact in the article be falsifiable? I think you're just trying to resurrect a previously settled issue, but I'll humor you and analyze the 2nd paragraph. According to concept of falsifiability, for an assertion to be falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false.

The 2nd paragraph, broken-down, states:

• "Opponents of ID, who include the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, claim that this argument is deceptive and has no standing as a scientific hypothesis, i.e. it is considered pseudoscience."

Can the statement be falsified? Yes, by showing that the majority of the scientific community does indeed support ID.

Is the statement correct as it is? Yes, the majority of the scientific community does not support ID. [3]

• "They say that ID 1) does not present falsifiable hypotheses, and 2) violates the principle of naturalism within scientific philosophy."

Can the statement be falsified? Yes, by showing that 1) ID presents hypotheses that can be tested, and 2) ID's assertions and conclusions are consistent with methodological naturalism.

Is the statement correct as it is? Yes, virtually all ID proponents assert a supernatural origin to the universe and life based on a singular instance of magical thinking: creation. ID's assertions, by resting on magical thinking, are fully inconsistent with methodological naturalism.

• "They also point to examples of seemingly poor design within biology."

Can the statement be falsified? Yes, by showing that all biological forms/organs are optimal.

Is the statement correct as it is? Yes, clearly not all biological forms and organs are optimal.

The 2nd paragraph is correct as it stands, as was decided previously here. I oppose both your characterization of it and any attempt to change its substance, tone or meaning.--FeloniousMonk 01:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mr. Rayment? Your turn first, if you like. ---Rednblu 01:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

<<It's not an appeal to authority because in the following sentence which you leave out I direct you to a starting point for you to begin reading up on the subject>>
In other words, you make reference to alleged evidence, but rather than mention any of that evidence, you just quote authority.

<<Very few who are knowledgeable in molecular biology or even reasonably well-read on the topic would make the claim that there is no evidence for sharing common ancestry.>>
I don't disagree that there is some evidence, but I do disagree that the evidence is conclusive.

<<Apparently you can not recognize a rhetorical question. ... And the point of my making that particular rhetorical question is that you cannot ever test, prove, or falsify that the cosmos was created by an supernatural being, so asserting that you can or that it is science is nonsense on its face.>>
And I could respond that apparently you cannot recognise the point of a counter-rhetorical question. Okay, your question was rhetorical. Then mine was also. But the real (unstated) question is, how does your question demonstrate that creation is not falsifiable, any my question not demonstrate the same about evolution? That is what you fail to answer.

<<I thought probably there would be some kinds of hypotheses about which the creationists and the evolutionists would agree on what "falsifiable" means. So I was looking for a specific example for which the creationists and evolutionists would agree ... Would you agree with how the Falsifiable page discusses the statement "All crows are black"?>>
Creationists and evolutionists can agree on falsifiability in principle. And I certainly agree with the example of the black crows. But notice how one falsifies the claim that "all crows are black"? "by observing one red crow" (emphasis added). FeloniousMonk claims that the notion that the universe was created by a supernatural creator is not falsifiable. I agree. But why do I agree? Because it is a unique past event (or series of such events) that is not observable. And exactly the same applies to goo-to-you evolution.

<<Karl Popper's demarcation is clear and uncontroversial:"If a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific; if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science." >>
I agree.

<<His criterion for demarcation draws a precise line between science and non-science, evolution and a naturalistic cosmology qualifying as the former, Intelligent Design and creationism being the latter.>>
I disagree. In fact I believe that Popper himself was criticised by evolutionists for his definition of falsifiablity, because it rules out goo-to-you evolution as being scientific. Perhaps you should try answering my rhetorical question about falsifiying evolution? The point is, you keep claiming that creation is not falsifiable and that evolution is, but you seem to treat those as givens or self-evident rather than explain how one is and the other isn't.

Regarding the second paragraph of the article, I believe that it is (technically) correct. That is, opponents of ID do make all those claims, which is what the paragraph says. Whether those claims of the ID opponents are correct or not, is another question.

For example, the paragraph says, "... ID does not present falsifiable hypotheses". But ID says, for example, that certain complex biological structures could not have arisen via intermediate stages. This is falsifiable, simply by demonstrating such a structure arising via intermediate stages! The claim that it is not falsifiable is nonsense.

Evolutionists have attempted to rebut ID by proving it wrong. For example, a number of people, including Richard Dawkins I believe, have tried to explain how the eye could have evolved via intermediate stages. What is the point of them even trying to falsify ID like this, if it is inherently not falsifiable?

FeloniousMonk claims that creation is not falsifiable. Meanwhile, in this very section, B. Bryant says that science has proven wrong the idea of a global flood. In other words, he is saying that it has been falsified. Yet I don't see FeloniousMonk disagreeing with B. Bryant that it has been proven wrong! I'll say it again. Many sceptics claim that creation has been proven wrong. Many sceptics claim that creation is not falsifiable. Quite often, both claims are made by the same people! Yet both cannot be correct! In fact, the paragraph in question, the second paragraph of the article virtually does this. After saying that (ID opponents claim that) ID is not falsifiable, it mentions that those same opponents point to examples of seeming poor design in biology. That sounds to me very much like an attempt at falsification!
Philip J. Rayment 04:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Paragraph 2 is phrased as an appeal to authority because that is the wikipedia style. "This person/group believes ___". The content is true as presented -- amongst many reasons, the scientific community opposes ID because they say it makes claims that cannot be falsified -- which happens to be true. --Rikurzhen 05:30, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of what we are discussing here in a rather spectacular way. We are discussing the validity of the second paragraph of the article, which states that the majority of scientists: feel that ID proponents leaving out the "Who, why, when, where and how" when invoking the argument from design is deceptive, that ID is not falsifiable and violates the principle of methodological naturalism, and that there are biological examples of poor "design." These statements are accurate and correct and are presented in a manner consistent with the wikipedia style and NPOV policy. The paragraph is valid and correct as it is.--FeloniousMonk 08:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NO actualy they are not using razor their using Kalam's theory, that nothing can be for an infinite time, everything has to have a begining. How can the big bang spawn from nothiningness? Marcroevolution is not a proven conscept, almost considered psuedoscience itself, yet you analize the Cambrian Explosion through naturalistic eyes? Darwin himself said "nature makes no leaps". How can you prove away dualism, that IS recognized as a theory by many, at the very least. This is ALL pointing at ID. -- 67.174.134.206 20:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is intelligent design theory falsifiable? It depends on how the theory is defined. Suppose we use this definition [4]:

Called intelligent design (ID), to distinguish it from earlier versions of design theory (as well as from the naturalistic use of the term design), this new approach is more modest than its predecessors. Rather than trying to infer God's existence or character from the natural world, it simply claims "that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable."

In this case intelligent design is falsifiable. How? Simply conduct experiments showing that intelligent causes are not necessary. Suppose for instance we apply this theory to the origin of life: intelligent causes are necessary to explain the existence of life on Earth (as opposed to abiogenesis). To falsify this theory, experimentally demonstrate a means how life could have arisen via undirected chemical reactions. This would show that intelligent causes are not necessary. A similar thing can be done for other ID hypotheses (e.g. “this irreducibly complex biochemical structure requires a designer”). Whatever its faults, ID is at least falsifiable. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade: There's a problem with your argument. Surely, an intelligent designer can design so no clear proof of its designing is evident. Indeed, some IDers already make this argument when it comes to why island fauna and flora are always relatives of the fauna and flora of the nearest mainlands. At its core, ID is not falsifiable.

69.84.100.123 23:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Don