That’s not what “falsifiable” mean.
I have already explained what falsifiability mean, several times, earlier in my other replies, but neither you, nor others (like BilliardsBall for example), don’t understand what falsifiable mean.
Falsifiability is not about just the assumptions alone.
And falsifiability is not about true or false.
Falsifiability is whether such statement (assumption) is capable of being tested in any way.
Falsifiability is not whether it is true or false. Falsifiability don’t determine true or false of the statement, but whether it is “testable” or “untestable”.
In the framework of Scientific Method, determining the falsifiability occurred BEFORE actual testing take place.
Part of formulating hypothesis, would include information or detailed instruction on how to carry out the testing, which can be done in either two ways (or both):
- In the field, it would tell you where and how you could possibly find the evidences that will either verify or refute the hypothesis.
- Or in the lab environment, where you would perform rigorous experimentation.
Ideally, both are preferable, because if it is both, then one would verify the other, or one would refute the other.
In the lab, the testing is more controlled, but on the fields, there is far less control, but finding evidences on the field (fieldwork), always take precedence over any lab results.
If you cannot test ID, then it is already debunked and consider pseudoscience.
No assumption, no statement, no prediction, no hypothesis and no theory are ever true by default, without testing.
What make ID untestable (and therefore unfalsifiable and unscientific), is the Designer itself. The Designer is like God.
- You cannot observe or detect the Designer.
- You cannot measure the Designer.
- You cannot quantify the Designer.
- You cannot test the Designer.
All of the above point, say that the core concept of the ID, which is the “Designer”, is untestable, which make ID untestable.
Once you start the “testing”, then you can begin to analyze each evidence or each test result.
It is the testing (which was my point 2 in the previous reply), that determine if the hypothesis is true or false, not the falsifiability of the hypothesis.
When you have enough evidences or perform enough experiments, then you can determine if the hypothesis given, is probable (true) or not probable (false).
It is preferable to have much as evidences or test results as possible, because the larger the number of data, the more better that you can determine the probability of the hypothesis being true or false.
You know your two points, leroy that I had quoted at the top - 1a & 1b. You left out the most important aspect for Intelligent Designer: the Designer.
Why did you left out the Designer in these 2 points?
Let refresh your memory and quote what I mean:
Where are the assumptions for the
"DESIGNER"?????
The whole point of ID is the Designer, and yet your assumptions don't include the Designer.
It is the Designer that is not falsifiable, leroy. That's why most scientists, including those biologists who have theistic beliefs have disqualified ID being a hypothesis, because the Designer is not falsifiable.
Ah. Abiogenesis.
Do you know why abiogenesis is falsifiable?
It is because some testing (both on the fields and in experiments) have already been carried out, and because of that abiogenesis is a hypothesis (but it is not a scientific theory).
They have already tried to replicate conditions of early Earth, to convert inorganic chemical into chemical origin of life.
Have you heard of the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment?
They were successful in converting inorganic compounds (water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen) into amino acids.
As you should know, amino acids are one of the compound required in proteins.
Even though the experiments were successful, abiogenesis still isn't scientific theory, because more different types of experiments are required.
Outside of the labs, we know that amino acids do occur naturally, on Earth. And we also know that amino acids were found in the Murchison meteorite in 1969.
Sorry, but what does me being agnostic have anything to do with science?
Agnostic merely have to do with philosophical stance between theism and atheism.
In science, agnosticism has no more merit than atheism and theism, because none of them relate to science, whatsoever.
Any working scientist, be they atheists, theists or agnostics in their private life, can understand and accept evolution or abiogenesis and reject ID.
Good grief.
LOL