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.
Just do it!
Condoms dont stop disease you pretender! there are over 50 diferent kinds of disease and many are got through skin contact alone of infected areas, condoms were invented along time ago to try and stop pregnancy, there is no such a thing as safe sex, europe is immoral but africa is even more and they are finding out now that aids maynot even be stopped by condoms because the virus is 50 times smaller than the tiny holes that are in latex. But it seems to be ueless to argue with you because you WANT to do what YOU WANT to do, instead of trying to better yourslf with at least alittle truth. Look back 40 years ago and you will see a obvious difference and an ever increasing disaster in our society as whole.
Scientists who dont believe in evolution. There are thousands but just to make note did you hear of the petition of scientists who have now signed a statement saying evolution is been debunked and doesnt add up, there are 700 now who haved signed it but there are thousands who believe the same. heres a few, that Im sure you will come back later to try and discredit somehow cause thats all you do is say make your statement and then Ill show you that that cant be counted. but you dont fool anyone because most honest people look it up for themselves and thouroghly and then they will see the whole of the evidence.
Scientists among thousands who do not believe in evolution
Dr. C.L. Cagan
Dr. Henry M. Morris- major in hydrology hydraulics minored in geology and mathmatics
Dr. Jeremy R. Walter mechanical engineering holds a MS BS and a PhD undersea propolsion development for the U S Navy etc....
Dr. Jerry R. Bergman PhD Human Biology etc... He has been a consultant for more than 20 science text books etc...
Dr. John K.G Kramer PhD in Biochemistry has published 128 refereed papers and numerous abstracts etc...
Dr. Paul Giem - Medical research- has also a BA and an MA his current work is on C 14 dating He has published research articles on medicine etc...
Dr. Nancy M Darrall -Botany-
Dr. Henry Zuill- Biology-
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati -Physical Chemistry-
Dr. Ariel A. Roth- Biology-
Dr. Keith A Wanser- Physics- Specializes in ultra sensitive optic fiber etc...etc...
Dr. Timothy G Standish- Biology-
Dr. John R Rankin- Mathmatical Physics-
Dr. Bob Hosken- Biochemistry-
Dr. James S Allen- Genetics-
Many many more the list goes on and on! Dont be a stooge be an independant thinker! Peace friend!
And now you say:
There are thousands but just to make note did you hear of the petition of scientists who have now signed a statement saying evolution is been debunked and doesnt add up, there are 700 now who haved signed it but there are thousands who believe the same.
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."So, nothing about "evolution is been debunked and doesnt add up"
Ever tried to follow your own advice?
I most certainly could name thousands I had more than double I could have listed just from the text from which I gave you the first list of and there are many more. Evolutionists are just stooges for the heirarchy of media and schools who promote it. But if you realy look at science and study it intensly and look at all the evidence it is overwhelmingly a no evidence belief. For example Global warming they have 17,000 scientists who have signed a statement saying there isnt any real evidence man contributes to a hypothesis of global warming and they only got 2,500 to say it does. But it is promoted by hollywood and media and schools as though it is absolute fact. This is dishonesty! The media and other liberal biased sources hype it, promote it, and propagandise it,(i.e. peer review, schools, liberal media, Al Gore who consumes more in one month of energy at his mansion than the average household does in a year, etc...etc...) and those who jump on the bandwagon without looking honestly and intelligently are stooges for the heierarchy.
I would say and it is safe to say that is a blatant statement by those who signed it in saying it diesnt add up. Quit playing symantics games with yourself.
I do follow my own advice thats why Im willing to refute the gibberish thats promoted by the dishonest. Who go around and try and refute the bible it is their whole intent by evolutionists.
Dr. Edward A Bourdreux -Theoretical Chemistry- 29 years in graduate education, and research in the area of inorganic chemistry and chemical physics as well as numerous scientific papers in peer reviewed journals and text books etc...etc...
Dr. John M. Cimbala - Mechanical Engineering- visiting senior research scientist at the NASA langley research center, published a number of research papers in the area of fluid dynamics and awards etc..etc...
Do you care to debate any of these scientists who believe in intelligent design?
Dr. John P. Marcus-Biochemistry- current research deals with antifungal proteins, their coressponding genes and their application in genetic engineering.
So far not a one of them believe in evolution! they believe in intelligent design and the biblical view in Genesis the one and only God the creator of all! The Father of Jesus Christ who can save even you from your folly just as He did me! shall I keep going? havent even begun my friend!
Dr. John Morris- Geological engineering-
Dr. Andrew McIntosh- Mathmatics- 10 textbooks and 80 research papers etc...
Dr. Edmond W. Holroyd -meteorology- 30 years of research, cloud physics and remote sensing research etc...
Dr. Jack Cuozzo- Orthodontics Dr. Couzzo took the first cephalometric (orthodontic) radiographs of the neanderthal fossils found in France and in many other countries, member of the American Association of Orthodontics for more than 30 years, etc...etc...
All bible believeing scientists! and many, many more!
Statements by evolutionists---
Sir william Dawson--- said of evolution, it is utterly destitute of proof
Dr. Robert a Milliken---The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution which no scientist can do
Loren Eisley(leading evolutionist)---with the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins what it could not demonstrate. etc...
and many more from evolutionists stateing their dishonest reasons for believeing in a no evidence belief.
More scientists who do NOT believe and or speak of the no evidence against evolution!
Dr. Paul Giesert- Former professor of Zoology
Dr. Werner Von Braun helped build Apollo rockets that went to the moon.
Ukrainian scientists have declared in Kiev and have come to conclusions that evolution should not be taught in schools
Dr. Albert Fleischman professor of zoology in Germany said evolution has not a single fact to confim it etc...
Dr. Austin Clark Said that all forms have been fixed from the begining etc...
Dr. Arthur Wilder E Smith former evolutionist with three doctorates.
Gerald E Ardsma- Physicist and radio carbon dating
Louis Agassi-helped develop the study of glacial geology and itchthyology
Alexander Ardnt- Analytic Chemist
So many more who are not part of the propaganda hollywood no evidence type science propagandists.
look up--- sodom and gomorah rediscovered
Arkdiscovery.com/sodom and gomorah.htm
accuracyingenesis.com
So, instead of giving me your secret list of "thousands of names", you're again referring to the contributors of "In Six Days". You know that this list will run out after 50 names?
Jeremy L. Walter, Jerry R. Bergman, John K.G. Kramer, Paul Giem, Henry Zuill, Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ariel A. Roth, Keith H. Wanser, Timothy G. Standish, John R. Rankin, Bob Hosken, James S. Allan, George T. Javor, Dwain L. Ford, Angela Meyer, Stephen Grocott, Andrew McIntosh, John P. Marcus, Nancy M. Darrall, John M. Cimbala, Edward A. Boudreaux, E. Theo Agard, Ker C. Thomson, John R. Baumgardner, Arthur Jones, George F. Howe, A.J. Monty White, D.B. Gower, Walter J. Veith, Danny R. Faulkner, Edmond W. Holroyd, Robert H. Eckel, Jack Cuozzo, Andrew Snelling, Stephen Taylor, John Morris, Elaine Kennedy, Colin W. Mitchell, Stanley A. Mumma, Evan Jamieson, Larry Vardiman, Geoff Downes, Wayne Frair, Sid Cole, Don B. DeYoung, George S. Hawke, Kurt P. Wise, J.H. John Peet, Werner Gitt, Don Batten
For your convenience I stroke out the names you used yet - please choose from the remaining names for your next post.
Many many more the list goes on and on! Dont be a stooge be an independant thinker! Peace friend!
Umm, no, the list doesn't go on and on - it stops here.
I do follow my own advice thats why Im willing to refute the gibberish thats promoted by the dishonest.
Oh, sweet irony!
> they are finding out now that aids maynot even be
> stopped by condoms because the virus is 50 times smaller
> than the tiny holes that are in latex.
That information is false.
"Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens."
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00021321.htm
www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/latex.htm
This is why I avoid creationist threads.
BUMP
Answer; Bad design is UN-Intelligent design..
You don't have to read past this statement because it is dead wrong. Any hypothesis must stand on it's own. It's predictions are either true or false and if there is no way to prove them false then the hypothesis is of no value.
Popper had right.
Leave Kofi Annan out of this!
Although the rules of engagement, blue helmets, and child prostitution scandals do suck.
Cheers!
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.