[Jeff Blogworthy]

Yeah, the article is repleat with errors, like this one:

"From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test."

[Jeff Blogworthy]

Make that *replete* - sorry

[D Rider]

...(unlike Darwinism)...

Was this a comedy/satire article?

[Right Wing Professor]

Yeah, the article is repleat with errors, like this one: "From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism) it is virtually impossible to test."

But we see evidence for the non-testability right here in this thread. When confronted with evidence that much of the construction of living organisms doens't look particularly intelligently designed, we get "'who are you to substitute your judgement for the designer's?" (Of course, better not write the Designer's, because we're not discussing God here, oh no). That's what Popper called an immunizing strategy, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience.

If the evidence of design is tangible; if we can recognize design in nature by comparing natural objects to known designed objects, then we can similarly evaluate the quality of design in nature by comparison with the quality of design of known objects.

[crail]

>> Yeah, the article is replete with errors, like this one:
>>
>> "From a scientific perspective, one of the most frustrating
>> things about intelligent design is that (unlike Darwinism)
>> it is virtually impossible to test."

Just out of curiosity then... how would you test creationism? After hearing just about everything creationists have to say, it pretty much boils down to "Evolution by natural selection has this and this problem" repeated in various ways. Even if the "problem" was a genuine observation that evolution couldn't explain, (and not a straw man as is so often the case), that's not evidence *for* something, it's evidence *against* something else. Compared to the wealth of evidence *for* evolution, a few as of yet poorly understood areas amount to nothing.

It's lead me to this conclusion... creationism needs evolution. If evolution ever were successfully removed from Biology, teaching biology would essentially be reduced to one sentence... "God did it." Creationism is a negative, an argument against, with no means of gaining knowledge to offer in replace. It isn't science, it isn't even curious... nothing but a bone to pick with the scientific method by the usual anti-science crowd.

While you're mulling over how to test creationism, I'll offer up this juicy quote. "We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." -- Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils say No!