"intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design."
Good analysis. The problem is that both of these arguments are contradictory - something the article does not make as clear as it should.
It is inevitable that this debate enters the realm of the philosophy of science because it is not merely about what is correct or incorrect but what qualifies to be called "science".
One of the biggest philosophical problems introduced by evolution proponents is how the ToE is treated as an explanatory theory rather than a generalized theory.
Closer examination of these concepts leads to the realization that pure naturalism does not lend itself well to the formation of concepts with explanatory power. Everything just is because it is, for those who see the universe through this lens.
posted on 02/22/2007 6:45:32 PM PST
(You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
Name one imperfect design! In the early 1900s evolutionists use to make claims that there were all kinds of vestiages of sorts and they have long been shown to be false. From the appendix to well we have a tail bone so that must mean we at one time had a tail, no evidence junk science, thats all evolutionist ever come up with!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson