Posted on 06/23/2007 11:45:35 PM PDT by MatthewTan
Pick up any biology textbooks, books, articles. And you will see the pervasive use of the word "design" - biological designs in cells, tissues, structures, bio-systems, organisms, etc.
So, Darwin theorized that this design is due to blind natural forces. The alternative theory of course must be that this design is not due to blind natural forces, but is real design, i.e. intelligence-caused design.
(I) Darwinist Theory: Design is due to blind natural forces (II) ID Theory: Design is intelligence-caused design
Is Darwinist theory falsifiable? If Darwinist theory is falsified, then of course ID theory is affirmed.
Similarly, if ID theory is falsified, then Darwinist theory is affirmed.
Those who claim that ID theory is not falsifiable are actually claiming that Darwinist theory does not lend itself to affirmation.
Similarly, those who claim that Darwinist theory can be affirmed must likewise acknowledge that ID theory is falsifiable.
The logic is obvious except for the logic-blind.
The only way the logic-blind can get around this logic is to declare that there are absolutely no designs in biology.
Then, these biologists should be challenged to banish the word "design" in all biology textbooks, books, article.
Dare to take up this challenge?
Any attempt to bring in religion is to obfuscate the issue and evade the logic, and to erect walls of "protectionism" to shield Darwinism from evidence-based scientific challenge.
So what if ID is religiously inspired? Even if ID is religiously inspired, Darwinists must deal with the evidence and logic of science.
Ah, yes, that's where they've gone wrong--dealing with the "evidence" illogically. Them damn Darwinists don't know nuthin' at all.
You are dealing in rhetoric, not logic.
So what if ID is religiously inspired?
Indeed.
“Is Darwinist theory falsifiable? If Darwinist theory is falsified, then of course ID theory is affirmed.
Similarly, if ID theory is falsified, then Darwinist theory is affirmed.
Those who claim that ID theory is not falsifiable are actually claiming that Darwinist theory does not lend itself to affirmation.
Similarly, those who claim that Darwinist theory can be affirmed must likewise acknowledge that ID theory is falsifiable. The logic is obvious except for the logic-blind.”
idiot. The logical fallacy you’ve just engaged in is called “affirming the consequent.” Look it up.
I’m a biologist (virologist, specifically). I gotta say, there may be some use of the word ‘design’ in introductory textbooks or in the lay press, but I don’t see people using it in the primary literature.
You could possibly be right it could be affirming the consequent as opposed to the “evolution of man” illustrations in most textbooks. That illustration isn’t affirming the consequent it is more on the line of “amplified creativity.” It would seem the nexus from a pelvic bone to a really cool “monkey man” is more art than science.
PS- Show a little respect. Why call someone an idiot? Couldn’t you have just as easily made your point without the personal attack? No one likes an uppity Darwinist.
you started it by shoving your foot deep down your throat with “The logic is obvious except for the logic-blind.” In fact, there are so many holes in your thesis that it’s difficult to know where to start, yet you propounded it with such authority that it comically demanded pushback.
Here’s a tip—if you want to be an asset rather than an embarrassment to the Biblical Creationist/ID movement, study up on some Aristotelian logic.
The quote at the beginning of your comment to me was not written by me. As a matter of fact, I thought I agreed with your initial statement. I will take your recommended subject area into consideration, and in turn, suggest you look into the discernment of the cognitive process of understanding the written linguistic message.
Actually, if Darwin's theory is falsified, then the existence of invisible pink unicorns is affirmed.
Or possibly any of thousands of alternative theories.
correct.
Yes, in the sense of "the arrangement of elements or details" (one of the definitions in a dictionary I just checked).
So, Darwin theorized that this design is due to blind natural forces.
Close enough.
The alternative theory of course must be that this design is not due to blind natural forces, but is real design, i.e. intelligence-caused design.
*One* alternative hypothesis of many conceivable ones, you mean.
(I) Darwinist Theory: Design is due to blind natural forces (II) ID Theory: Design is intelligence-caused design
As well as III, IV, V, VI...
Is Darwinist theory falsifiable?
Yes, in many ways. As a famous quip put it, Darwinian evolution could be falsified by finding a genuine pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil. Or any of the many lines of falsification possibilities listed here, for example.
If Darwinist theory is falsified, then of course ID theory is affirmed.
EERRNNTT!! Wrong. Dead wrong. Epistemology doesn't work that way. You have committed the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.
"Darwinist theory" and "ID theory" are not the only two possibilities, nor are they mutually exclusive. Falsifying one does not validate the other. One being false does not prove the other one true.
In reality, both could be false and some other theory entirely (perhaps one not yet even imagined today) might be the true explanation. Or both could be true at the same time (i.e., some living features could be the result of "blind natural forces", while others are the result of intelligent design, or some features might have originated naturally but been improved by intelligent agents, or vice versa).
Way, way too many "ID" fans make this mistake time and time again. They think that attacking or attempting to undermine evolutionary biology, or trying to rule out evolutionary origins for some structure, helps to demonstrate "ID" origins. It doesn't. Again, both could be false -- proving evolution wrong doesn't prove ID right, even if that's the only other possibility you can conceive of. If you can't *positively* demonstrate evidentiary support *for* intelligent design (as a trivial if implausible example, by finding a copyright notice in the genome), then "ID" will remain at best an unsupported hypothesis EVEN IF you could manage to tear down every facet of evolutionary biology.
Similarly, if ID theory is falsified, then Darwinist theory is affirmed.
No. Similarly, you are committing the exact same logical fallacy here. Evolution can not be validated by ruling out "ID". For examples of how evolutionary biology is positively validated, see for example 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, or this post.
Those who claim that ID theory is not falsifiable are actually claiming that Darwinist theory does not lend itself to affirmation.
No they aren't. You're again falling for your own fallacy. It's not an either/or situation. And evolutionary biology has been affirmed countless times without ever having to falsify ID -- see the above links for example.
Similarly, those who claim that Darwinist theory can be affirmed must likewise acknowledge that ID theory is falsifiable.
Wrong again.
The logic is obvious except for the logic-blind.
ROFL!! Sorry, but the only "obvious" thing here is that you've committed several logical fallacies in your arguments.
The only way the logic-blind can get around this logic is to declare that there are absolutely no designs in biology.
Maybe that's how the "logic-blind" might try to do it, but that's not what us logic-competent people are limited to.
Then, these biologists should be challenged to banish the word "design" in all biology textbooks, books, article.
I agree that using the word "design" manages to confuse some people who insist on reading it in ways other than the obvious ways the authors are using it in context, but that's more the fault of those particular readers than it is of the authors, who are using a perfectly good word in a good and proper way.
Nonetheless, if you can think of a better word to use, feel free to suggest it. The problem is that, like "theory" and "law" and some other words that have a somewhat different meaning in a scientific context than they do in common usage (and thus can be misunderstood until the reader gets the hang of the jargon), the possibility for misunderstanding is a drawback, but those words are used because there aren't really other suitable words that can be used that are accurate, meaningful, and non-ambiguous. If there were better words to use, scientists would already be using them. And it's a bit late at this date to invent entirely new words for those purposes.
Dare to take up this challenge?
I can't say I have a burning desire to, no.
Any attempt to bring in religion is to obfuscate the issue and evade the logic, and to erect walls of "protectionism" to shield Darwinism from evidence-based scientific challenge.
Nothing I've said here brings in religion. Your arguments are fallacious strictly from a logical basis.
So what if ID is religiously inspired? Even if ID is religiously inspired, Darwinists must deal with the evidence and logic of science.
We do, thanks. I wish the "ID" folks would do the same.
That's a better track record than general relativity. And it isn't difficult to imagine kinds of evidence that would be inconsistent with evolution. Fossils sorted in the strata by weight or density, for example.
This is a topic I have always been clueless about. My kids asked me about it and I told them this.
“e came from the primordial soup like all creatures, we evolved into what we are today and everyday, new species evolve as well as vanish. That is called Evolution.
However, with Evolution of the body also came evolution of the mind and spirit. This is where faith and religion came in. Adam came from the earth and received his marching orders from a higher power which was God.
The two go hand in hand, neither can be omitted from the equation. And if your teachers tell you anything different, call them a communist.”
In reality, both could be false and some other theory entirely (perhaps one not yet even imagined today) might be the true explanation. Or both could be true at the same time (i.e., some living features could be the result of "blind natural forces", while others are the result of intelligent design, or some features might have originated naturally but been improved by intelligent agents, or vice versa).
Way, way too many "ID" fans make this mistake time and time again. They think that attacking or attempting to undermine evolutionary biology, or trying to rule out evolutionary origins for some structure, helps to demonstrate "ID" origins. It doesn't. Again, both could be false -- proving evolution wrong doesn't prove ID right, even if that's the only other possibility you can conceive of. If you can't *positively* demonstrate evidentiary support *for* intelligent design (as a trivial if implausible example, by finding a copyright notice in the genome), then "ID" will remain at best an unsupported hypothesis EVEN IF you could manage to tear down every facet of evolutionary biology.
You mean, they actually have to do science to support ID?
Whoa! That'll be a change!
Nice comments.
The word "design" appears ONCE in Darwin's Origin of Species.
Meshuga science ping.
Well, why don't you just begin wherever you want, and explain to us where the holes are, and why they are, in fact, "holes." That should be rather easy, according to you.
Might I point out that you failed to include the sarcasm end tag.
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.