Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.
ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.
A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.
This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.
Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.
"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.
Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.
###
Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.
Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.
It doesnt matter who they are its been found!
And it is commonsense that the world is a more dangerous place than it was in the past. The evidence is so overwhelming that when immorality goes up so does consequences from go up! Sexual immorality the rise in disease statistics go up broken homes, abuse,etc!... Drug use? muder death and despair go up! etc... etc...etc.... who do you think you are kidding? look at the old west, where law was scarce, why do you think people carried guns on there sides, in those places, they were dangerous!!!!!! duh!!!! Why do you think africa and other sexualy immoral areas are ridden with aids and other diseases!!!! It not even worth the argument with you!!!! and why do you guys keep re writting everything a person posts that doesnt agree with you, do think you are belittling someone this way, "oh look at what you have wrote, now let me show you how you are in error", you arent fooling anyone!!!!! anything ive posted that people can see for themselves, or they can fall for your propaganda, but a wise person would check it out, But you arent honest yourselves, because if you wee realy trying to be SCIENTISTS you would consider all the evidence!
Have you shared your great wisdom with the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society? I'm sure they would be interested.
I have made a large list of scientific evidence to a global flood even before this list, that is understood by all of science, and you have not been able to refute any of it. nor can you. so dont even try because ive heard all the adhock junk before from others before you and heard the no evidence hypotheticals from evolutionists. Theres a big difference from real evidence and scientific logic as opposed hypothetical adhock stories, " o you creation scientists say this and you have evidence? well hears my NO EVIDENCE hypothetical story Ill tell you to explain it away. Hypotheticals with no evidence whatsoever from evolutionists.
fossils have usualy to be buried rapidly
mass graves of fossils are usualy what is found
coal that is millions of years old according to the evo hype/propaganda there shouldnt be any c 14 in it but guess what there is. should have decayed to nitrogen long ago. they have the roughly same percentages in them no matter what layer .26 pmc from eocine .21 from the cretaceous .27 from the pennsylvanian there is little variance whatsoever in the levels of c 14 in the geological record
Planation surfaces are abundant on all continents, planation surfaces are not being formed today. Erosion does not explain planantion so dont go there. global flooding explains this very well.
marine fossils in the mountains
clearly visible sediments on everest
whale fossils found high above sea levels
many ancient peoples wrote of a global flood in which eight people survived the odds of this being a coincodence is quite a stretch.
If you study population growths it is consistant to the population today from arond 4300-4500 years ago.
glaciers and glacier erosion
catastrophic plate tectonics
any lurkers out there as the evolutionists like to call you, well you can all look it up for yourselves, if you are honest with wanting to know the truth look at ALL of the evidence WILLINGLY!!!!
huge sandstones deposits and on and on and on and on!!!!
See my post #322.
listen friend statistics show tremendous rises in everthing wretched to normal living in this era than in the a more consistantly moral past. This is fact!!!! this is a no argument disscussion, it is absolute fact. There isnt an inner city today that is the way it use to be, disease is on the rise, etc...etc...violent crime, phsycological disorders, disfunctional family life, etc...etc...quit kidding yourself!!!!
You're claiming the best date is 500 years to 300 years (4500-4300) before Adam ....
So when did Noah become Adam's G..grandfather ?
Keepers of odd knowledge? thats dumb! Have you checked your lies at the door because,because i know you arent looking for truth, but instead, excuses! so look with honesty and not make excuses! Then you would at the least have creditability as someone who was searching that at least would be more noble!
what are you talking about? Adam could have been alive and died before the event of even up to when noah was working on the ark which in the bible showed it was 120 years I believe. Adam lived 9 hundred something years.
No. I'm serious.
I really think you should share your vast learning with the Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Society!
Like I said thats dumb! not even funny, sorry! go get out your pocket protector and think of another, cause that dont cut it. Your just a stooge coyoteman of the higherarchy of evolutionists propagandists. Peace!
I have seen the acronym of KOOKS used in a couple of different ways, and really did not know what it meant..would your ' Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society' be one of those ways?
You are sharp tonight! ;-)
Thanks...
Your innumeracy?
Archbishop Ussher calculated the date of creation as October 22, 4004 BC based on the genealogies of Genesis.
Both of your dates, 4500 BC and 4300 BC are before the world was created!
For Coyoteman:
Another Flood Estimate: 2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Theology at Andrews University.
Who are those who "mostly regard" the flood as being around 4300-4500 BC. The voices in your head? Or can you give some links?
Not eager to prove it, its that the evidence as well as many other subject matters gives great evidence and credibility to the bible. And I could give you a list of thousands of scientists and historians and archeaologists who use to be eager in disproving the bible and later changed their minds because of what? Because of the evidence that so overwhelmingly showed them different to their eagerness of disproval of the bible, and they are well learned with many years of experience and known and very credible professionals, And they denounce evolution something they once was bafooned into being told was true, but they no longer see it that way, because there agenda isnt the eagerness to discredit the bible like yours but they have decided to look at all the evidence and when they did they found a whole lot more that isnt told. Peace.
Thats funny cause even those while clinton was in office and the intelligence and brittish and other intelligence all said that there were WMDs. And for you humanitarians who are big hypocrites what was being done against the Iraqi people alone over in Iraq alone was justification for going there. And besides you should ask the same questions you are trying to bring to me, but you are unwilling because you are dishonest, if you are not looking for the truth then whats your point of being a scientist?
You are a great kidder, you dont fool anyone! look up the crime rates etc... 20 30 40 50 years ago and compare them to today and quit kidding yourself! At least coyoteman comes back with something discussible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.