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.
I didn't apologize to you, I apologized to the late Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829) - a man who never got a chance to criticize Charles Darwin (1809-1882) on evolution...
Charles Darwins "so called" science is pure rubbish, no one holds to his pangene nonsense. Thats why evolutionist change their title all the time, Francis Bacon didnt have to malign himself to Darwin because Darwin as we know had nothing worth contributing, his junk has been debunked along time ago so there was no need to know Darwin anyways. but as I said before the list goes on and on of scientists who do not believe in evolutionism. I got alot more.
I agree that the author has a willful blindness towards evolution when speaking about "mini-ID". I came across this quote:
"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designer’s goals and abilities are true."
It could just as well be rendered:
"The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for evolution. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about mutation and natural selection’s goals and capabilities are true."
But of course, I already agree with the ID side of things.
Thats a stretch dont you think? How about Edward Blyth who wrote of natural selction 24 years before Darwin He was a creationist scientist. But Darwin stole what he did and propagandised it to fit what Charles Drwins Racist, womanising, and belief in not helping the sick and needy beliefs. him and his cronies where pure propagandists just like they are today. And the minkey scopes trial all done for a publicity stunt. More dishonesty from evolutionism.
Oh hale evolutionism, I want to lie and propagandise for you, so I can hide from the face of God and his conviction of my folly that I take pleasure in. I will uphold foolishness at the price of real evidence and being honest.
Wow! Christ has come!
Does the Pope know about this? He's been waiting for this for, oh about the last 2000 years. I hope he's got his clothes packed.
... all our great inventions have occured cars trains plauns camera etc...etc... it is all the more the last hour, just something to think about and you will.
Speaking of which ... When was the last time you had a CAT scan?
Every knee will bow and every tounge will confess ...
Even the Muslims? What about the Shintos and Buddhists?
Read the bible and you will soon realise these are not words of mythology.
So talking snakes and donkeys, wives turning into a pillars of salt, angels announcing virgin births are not mythology? Gotit.
The choice is yours make an honest one!
Denying reality is no way to go through life son.
LOL,
Ive posted already three posts or more with each having a list of non evolution believeing scientists, and I got alot more! shall I keep going?
This can also be said of many people currently in the clergy.
I stand by my assertion that you're posting nonsense. For instance, in your post 389, you boldly tell us the story of “Scientist J.” Is that anything like “Monster Zero”? Who cares what a nameless “scientist” in an unnamed magazine had to say?
You then go on to list the following "scientists who say evolution is bunk." I'm being charitable when I characterize your post as nonsense. I could also make the case that you were posting obvious distortions.
Anyone can look up what ive[sic] posted and see for themselves[sic] and I encourage them to do so!You went on to post a list of names. Here it is again, in all its mangled glory, with my comments in bold. I followed your advice and looked them up.
Dr. Robert Boyle--- helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics He died in 1691. What value his views on Darwin’s theory might have is somewhat mysterious.Nonsense or dishonest? Of the thirteen names that were possible to check, two died in the seventeenth century, two died in the nineteenth but before Darwin’s theory was published, and three others died in the nineteenth century, but after the theory was published. Fabre died in 1915.Dr. Werner Von Braun--- rocket sciences and space exploration He was a deeply religious man, but that doesn’t mean he rejected the Theory of Evolution. Don’t mistake your interpretation of your religion for everyone else’s.
Dr. Authur[sic] Chadwick---Geologist. Bingo! He's a legit ID supporter. (He also posits that the earth is billions of years old. Here’s a link to one of his papers: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:o3GQZ5SoT_MJ:origins.swau.edu/papers/complexity/trilo/article.pdf+%22Arthur+Chadwick%22+bio&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us).
Dr. Melvin Alonzo Cook---Physical Chemist, nobel prize nominee He got the Nitro Nobel Gold medal; it’s not “The” Nobel prize. He was a YEC.
Dr. Francis Bacon---develped the scientific method Died in 1626.
Dr. Steven A Austin---geologist and coal formation expert Can’t find much about him. Put him in your column just to make it fair.
Dr. Humphry Davy---helped develp science of thermokinetics Died in 1829.
Dr. David Brewster---helped develop science of optical mineralogy Died in 1868.
Dr. Henri Fabre---helped develop science of insect entomology Died in d 1915 .
Dr. Micheal Faraday---helped develop science of electromagnetics etc...invented theelectric generator Died in 1867.
Dr. Thomas G Barnes---Physicist Take him, he’s yours. Wikipedia says, “Thomas G. Barnes is a creationist who posited that the magnetic field of the Earth was decaying at an exponential rate.” This is difficult to take seriously.
Dr. Charles Babbage---helped develop science of computers etc... Died in 1871.
Dr. William Herschel---helped develop the science of galactic astronomy discovered double stars etc... Died in 1822.
Just out of curiosity ... how many years do you think are in a century?
None of the "lists" fitted your claim from post #338:
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?Especially the last one contributed mainly persons who never had a chance to evaluate the theory of evolution...
shall I keep going?
You should try to start...
Believeing in God and Christ is looking at what is around us taking what has been given us looking at the factual evidence as it says in Romans that by the very nature od things there is no excuse that will be excepted for non believers. Its realy not hard to believe after all we are here arent we we once didnt know before we were born but now we are here alive, how does that happen, look at the perfection, look at the remarkable writing of scripture, mythologies fade and are found entertaining--- but the bible has never been forgotten and speaks with authority and seriousness, at those who have kept it kept it with earnest accuracy, that because something scared them, its called the fear of the Lord, which is the begining of knowledge.
I walk by faith and not by sight. but yet it is not a blind faith! For faith is the substance of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for-Hebrews 11
So, out of the eight names you gave in this post, seven were misspelled. You should be embarrassed!
Imposserous ... to quote Stan Laurel.
Mr. gummybearlegs you are the one with the distortions you have dishonestly scrutinised my post, you should take another look! try Christiananswers.net and get alittle educated before you embark on being a critic. Because you just put your foot in your mouth.
Back to my question, which you dodged with a torrent of semi-illiterate verbiage: how many "intelligent designers" were there, and what is your justification for your answer?
Your response:
Where is the science you claimed? You are giving me apologetics (defense of religion).Believeing in God and Christ is looking at what is around us taking what has been given us looking at the factual evidence as it says in Romans that by the very nature od things there is no excuse that will be excepted for non believers. Its realy not hard to believe after all we are here arent we we once didnt know before we were born but now we are here alive, how does that happen, look at the perfection, look at the remarkable writing of scripture, mythologies fade and are found entertaining--- but the bible has never been forgotten and speaks with authority and seriousness, at those who have kept it kept it with earnest accuracy, that because something scared them, its called the fear of the Lord, which is the begining of knowledge. I walk by faith and not by sight. but yet it is not a blind faith! For faith is the substance of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for-Hebrews 11
Where is your evidence for "science just supports Intelligent design?"
Also, I believe you have ducked my original question: How many "intelligent designers" were there, and what is your justification for your answer?
Rubbish.
coyoteman be honest with yourself! the perfection is all around you the notion of this just happening is ridiculous you seriously need to ponder that, or at least look at the mathmatical ridiculousness of evolution in which there is no end to the variables that could also be added to the already ridiculous zero% possibility of such a ridiculous evolutionism scapegoat belief. who we are and where we live doesnt just happen for no reason, nowhere in life do you see this. i dont know all the answers but I know enough not tostand by a metal pole when theres lightening outside, you know commonsenes once you get past that then look at what makes the most sense, what shows itself to be true, the world or Gods scripture1 its your choice! thats all I can say to you! just be honest with yourself! peace!
You persist in confusing God's word with yours.
What do you mean how many were there? I dont get your pharisitical scrutiny?
well Mr. gummybearlegs be alittle more honest that all. Peace!
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.