Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

topmind wrote:
"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of
falsifiability. The theory of evolution asserts that a certain set of
mechanisms, including but not limited to natural selection, are
responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

So it is all-or-nothing? May I ask for a citation for this?

Pick any undergraduate level biology textbook. If, as seems highly
likely, you don't have one left over from your own college courses,
start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from
there.

If your question is genuine rather than being a rhetorical device, you
need to educate yourself before attempting to discuss this topic.

You know, if you guys often found citations that proved me or my
definitions wrong, then I might take these "you are naive about
science" accusations more seriously.

I gave a citation: The theory of evolution is explained in most
undergraduate biology textbooks. Ken Miller's are quite good. There
is also considerable material available on the web for those willing to
look. If you need even more hand holding, start with these two sites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

If someone were to
demonstrate that those mechanisms cannot explain a particular lifeform
or if the predictions based on the theory (e.g. nested hierarchies)
turned out to be inaccurate, the theory would have to be modified or
discarded."

That is true of any theory or hypoth.

The point is that there are any number of potential falsifications of
the theory of evolution. You are utterly wrong in claiming otherwise.

But IF that is how you define "falsification", then one can apply the
same to ID.

First, that isn't how _I_ define falsification, it _is_ the definition
of falsification. Look it up.

Second, one _cannot_ "apply the same to ID" because there is no
scientific theory of intelligent design. To be scientific, it would
_have_ to be falsifiable.

You are wrong. This is why falsifiability is so important. To be
considered scientific, an hypothesis or theory must make predictions
that could, in principle, be falsified. If one of those predictions is
demonstrated to be incorrect, the theory is wrong.

Not necessarily. It could simply need modification.

No, it means the theory is _wrong_. That's why falsifiability is
essential to science -- it provides a way of eliminating incorrect
explanations.

Given that any theory that replaces a previously established theory
must explain all of the observations explained by the previous theory
plus the observations that falsified it, the new theory is likely to be
similar to the old in many ways. Nonetheless, falsifiability has shown
the old theory to be _wrong_.

Or, multiple theories could be active at the same time.

This is another reason why a scientific theory must be falsifiable. If
it is not, there is no way of determining which, if either, of two
alternative explanations is correct.

An ID'er may have used evo also.

Is your "theory" that the evidence left by an intelligent designer is
indistinguishable in principle from the evidence explained by the
theory of evolution?

To my knowledge there is currently no scientific theory of intelligent
design. If you believe there is one, please state it.

Is there an official registrar of theories somewhere?

One such is the peer reviewed literature. I know of no theory of
intelligent design that has been expounded therein.

So voting is the science ruler you are using?

Your evasion is noted. What is the scientific theory of intelligent
design?

This is not a word game. You have not specified your hypothesis. The
only ideas I've seen you suggest involve unknown entities performing
unknown acts for unknown reasons at some unknown time. Is that your
"hypothesis" of intelligent design?

And SETI.

Another evasion noted. What is the scientific theory of intelligent
design?

Humans have not travelled to other planets and inserted messages into
the genomes of other species that have resulted in signals appearing
after tens or hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

So? Such does not require superatural ability. And if we had a trillion
dollars it is within our current technology.

Is that part of your theory of intelligent design?

It is relatively easy to make a specific DNA test. Precision in
documenting is not a material barrier. The question here is "testable"
anyhow, not "tested". One could create a bunch of DNA pattern detection
algorithms, write up some nice documentation and users manuals, and put
them in a nice shiney slick binder.

If you did that in the absence of a falsifiable hypothesis, it would be
meaningless. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?

Further, one _cannot_ "do the same thing with ID" because there is no
scientific theory of intelligent design. Present the theory, in
detail, and the predictions that arise from it.

Where is SETI's detailed predictions?

The evasion count is up to three. What is the scientific theory of
intelligent design?

The real separator between "DNA-ID" and any scientific theory is that
there is no scientific theory of intelligent design.

Because it is not in this ficticious "registrar" of yours?

No, because no one, including you, has ever presented one. I claim
that no such theory exists. Prove me wrong.

I gave one. If you forgot it, then take some Ginko Balabea (sp?).

Interesting that you claim to have provided one without providing a
reference. If you really are the first person in history to do so, you
should be shouting it from the rooftops.

What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?

BJ

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... This is why falsifiability is so important. ... intelligent design that has been expounded therein. ... specify exactly how to detect those signals, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Iowa: Vander Plaats supports teaching intelligent design
    ... Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Bob Vander Plaats said he ... "If we are going to teach evolution, ... Intelligent design holds the possibility that an ... definitely not a scientific theory," Smith told Vander Plaats. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Meyer Op-Ed: Signs of intelligence
    ... > An originator of ID makes a case for weighing the theory about how we got here ... > could not learn about the controversial theory of intelligent design, ... > the theory alongside Darwinian evolution. ... If they had a scientific theory why didn't they present it in Dover? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Iowa: Vander Plaats supports teaching intelligent design
    ... Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Bob Vander Plaats said he ... "If we are going to teach evolution, ... Intelligent design holds the possibility that an ... definitely not a scientific theory," Smith told Vander Plaats. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Iowa: Vander Plaats supports teaching intelligent design
    ... Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Bob Vander Plaats said he ... "If we are going to teach evolution, ... Intelligent design holds the possibility that an ... definitely not a scientific theory," Smith told Vander Plaats. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading