Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Kuzcotopia]

that is exactly what I'm saying actually. it's hard to believe that you can't think of many terms where the first word of that term specifies and changes the meaning of the term from the definition of the root word. you actually use one of these terms in your last comment. the term was organic evolution, which as you imply refers to more than evolution in general.

by the term scientific theory, a series that is based on the scientific method of experimentation and observations is being referred to. The same cannot be said for creationism, as it is not based on observable experimentation apart from theoretical concepts. This makes scientific theories, demanding repeated testing through experimentation and observation, more substantial than theoretical hypotheses without any observable data to back them up. That is what you seem to be discounting.

Well said.

There seems to be this disconnect that scientific inquiry means absolute dogmatic adherence to a theory, where all external observation implicitly support the theory that's already accepted. To me, that's assuming everyone thinks the same way as a theist.

Also, there is the belief that if the theory is not 100% proven, it cannot be accepted as reasonable based on the evidence known. Therefore, you must accept my made-up alternative: Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Only in imaginative scenarios in light of not having evidence in ID, while evolution is based on facts and is not up for debate.

 

[Bunyip]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

Wow, so much for logic. Evolution is not affected by the failures of creationism/intelligent design.

 

[JayJayDee]

that is exactly what I'm saying actually. it's hard to believe that you can't think of many terms where the first word of that term specifies and changes the meaning of the term from the definition of the root word. you actually use one of these terms in your last comment. the term was organic evolution, which as you imply refers to more than evolution in general.

I did not invent the term "micro-evolution" nor did I invent "macro-evolution". There is more than one form of evolution according to science. I believe that science has definite evidence for adaptation, which some call micro-evolution, but I do not subscribe to the belief that adaptation can explain one creature evolving into another, no matter how much time elapsed...or that literally thousands of creatures did the same thing through what science attributes to mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, so the odds are against evolution ever happening the way they claim.

I do not believe that creatures like whales were once land animals who evolved into marine creatures. There is no proof that it ever happened, except in the over active imagination of the scientists.

I believe that the creatures the Genesis account calls "kinds" were created separately and individually but with the ability to adapt to changing environments. They are and always have been, separate "kinds".

In their experiments scientists did not find one kind turning into another kind of creature. They found them adapting in small ways to suit a changing environment.

by the term scientific theory, a series that is based on the scientific method of experimentation and observations is being referred to. The same cannot be said for creationism, as it is not based on observable experimentation apart from theoretical concepts. This makes scientific theories, demanding repeated testing through experimentation and observation, more substantial than theoretical hypotheses without any observable data to back them up. That is what you seem to be discounting.

The findings of science are no more than hypothesis, supposition and educated guessing. They have huge gaps that they fill, not with evidence, but with imagination. Science can no more prove that all life evolved from a single organism than we can prove that an intelligent Creator brought all things into existence according to his design.

Claiming that something is a fact when it is unprovable is dishonest.

 

[Bunyip]

I did not invent the term "micro-evolution" nor did I invent "macro-evolution". There is more than one form of evolution according to science. I believe that science has definite evidence for adaptation, which some call micro-evolution, but I do not subscribe to the belief that adaptation can explain one creature evolving into another, no matter how much time elapsed...or that literally thousands of creatures did the same thing through what science attributes to mutations. Beneficial mutations are rare, so the odds are against evolution ever happening the way they claim.

I do not believe that creatures like whales were once land animals who evolved into marine creatures. There is no proof that it ever happened, except in the over active imagination of the scientists.

I believe that the creatures the Genesis account calls "kinds" were created separately and individually but with the ability to adapt to changing environments. They are and always have been, separate "kinds".

In their experiments scientists did not find one kind turning into another kind of creature. They found them adapting in small ways to suit a changing environment.



The findings of science are no more than hypothesis, supposition and educated guessing. They have huge gaps that they fill, not with evidence, but with imagination. Science can no more prove that all life evolved from a single organism than we can prove that an intelligent Creator brought all things into existence according to his design.

Claiming that something is a fact when it is unprovable is dishonest.

Not as dishonest as denying that the evidence of whale evolution exists.

 

[FearGod]

If Intelligent design is real, why is everything so very poorly designed? Top of the list being human beings?

Specially the brain.

 

[JayJayDee]

Not as dishonest as denying that the evidence of whale evolution exists.

Please show us this evidence....It has been shown to be a fraud already.

 

[Bunyip]

Please show us this evidence....It has been shown to be a fraud already.

Why so dishonest? There are thousands of fossils here - showing dozens of different stages in the evolution of the whale. You can see the evolution of the whale in almost infinite detail - you have been given the citations before. Why all the denial?

 

[Jared Jammer]

The excuses are even more flimsy than I expected. So many bald assertions. So many non-sequiturs. So many assaults on logic.

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go throw up now.

 

[McBell]

Why so dishonest? There are thousands of fossils here - showing dozens of different stages in the evolution of the whale. You can see the evolution of the whale in almost infinite detail - you have been given the citations before. Why all the denial?

Some people must flat out lie to themselves in order to protect their faith.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I believe that the creatures the Genesis account calls "kinds" were created separately and individually but with the ability to adapt to changing environments. They are and always have been, separate "kinds".
.

Is it possible that you could see enough evidence to be convinced that the Genesis account is inaccurate?

If you claim that there is absolutely no reasonable evidence that would ever dissuade you from your theory, then that is intellectually dishonest.

Stop projecting that dishonestly on scientific inquiry. If evidence was found to support a theory outside of evolution, then the scientific community would consider it.

Believe whatever you want, but you have to understand that difference between scientific inquiry and faith.

 

[McBell]

The excuses are even more flimsy than I expected. So many bald assertions. So many non-sequiturs. So many assaults on logic.

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go throw up now.

Denial is faith's best friend.
You demonstrate it well.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

The excuses are even more flimsy than I expected. So many bald assertions. So many non-sequiturs. So many assaults on logic.

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go throw up now.

Make a claim, back it up. Playing poorly conceived, fallacious logic games is not the same as putting your own conclusions out there.

You have yet to do that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So God designed in selfishness, aggression, dishonesty, ageing, disease, cancer, death, and so on? Well, gee, thanks for nothing, God!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Absolutely false. Random mutations increase the size of the gene pool, thus providing more diversity.

You are talking nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

I believe you addressed the lack of mutual exclusivity. But if we take two contradicting views then you are correct. YEC for instance is testable and has been satisfactorily debunked, by multiple fields of science. However, the reason people suggest that intelligent design is untestable is due to the ability of intelligent design to pull back a step. For instance, prove evolution, and ID says that evolution was designed to work that way on earth, prove abiogenesis and ID just says that non living matter was designed to act that way, prove the origin of matter and ID says that the fundamental forces were designed to give rise to such an origin. Go one step further and logically discount all possible intelligent designers, and ID says that the designer is unbound by logic. This escape hatch is the reason people assert that intelligent design is untestable. If we take a specific hypothesis of intelligent design and remove escape hatches, such as a designer who can do anything, then we have a testable theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are talking nonsense.

No, he is describing one of the basic known facts of biology.

 

[FearGod]

So God designed in selfishness, aggression, dishonesty, ageing, disease, cancer, death, and so on? Well, gee, thanks for nothing, God!

All such weakness and we're still arrogant, reminds me with one of my relatives who was a heavy smoker, i used to advise him to stop smoking before ending his life, but he was so arrogant and used to say doctors are stupid and that many of them do smoke...etc, actually i gave up with him and with the others as well, and before around 5 years he wasn't able to walk in one day night and i myself accompanied him to the doctor, the doctor requested an x-ray to the chest, there was water inside the lung and the doctor injected a needle to pull the water from his lung and a sample were sent to the lab.

The bad news later on, it was the cancer, he moved to the hospital and there were no chance as he was too late, he suffered a lot and even he was crying asking his children not to smoke and sadly all his sons are heavy smokers, i do really wonder with the humans minds.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

. . . Then Darwinian Evolution is untestable. If intelligent design is unfalsifiable, then Darwinian evolution is unprovable.

Why? Logic 101.

They're opposing answers to the same question, thus, any test for one will inherently test the other.
Any evidence for one will be evidence against the other.
Any proof of one will be proof against the other. proving one will falsify the other (and vice versa).

When Darwinists say we can't falsify the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't prove biology is the product of blind nature.

When Darwinists say we can't prove the claim that biology is a product of design, they're unwittingly confessing that they can't falsify the claim that biology is the product of blind nature.

The only reasonable conclusion is that either both are science, or neither is science.

Food for thought. I eagerly await your flimsy excuses.

False on most accounts.
Firstly they do not test each other. Neither actually has anything to do with the other. Evolution is a theory based upon evidence that we have gathered. ID is hogwash created by a religiously motivated minority attempting to usurp science in the name of god.

For example there is no scientific testing or even questioning in ID. They simply make assumptions without evidence or even falsify evidence. They have made great strides to attempt to disprove evolution and have failed miserably on each and every single account. It is nothing more than religious tantrum throwing over their litteralist view of theological accounts being challenged by scientific evidence.

Evolution has been observed and well documented. There are mountains of evidence. ID, depending on which theory you support, is either un-falsifiable or totally wrong. If you support the concept that we were created as we are then it is simply demonstrably wrong. If you support the one that states that evolution is correct BUT it was the will of some divine superior being then they have admitted that we have the evidence for evolution but have now made the leap that it could not have happened without god. However they fail to find any supporting evidence beyond what has already been evidenced under evolution.

Evolution is science. Id is not. There is no logical requirement to accept that rocks are edible if bread is edible.

 

[FearGod]

False on most accounts.
Firstly they do not test each other. Neither actually has anything to do with the other. Evolution is a theory based upon evidence that we have gathered. ID is hogwash created by a religiously motivated minority attempting to usurp science in the name of god.

For example there is no scientific testing or even questioning in ID. They simply make assumptions without evidence or even falsify evidence. They have made great strides to attempt to disprove evolution and have failed miserably on each and every single account. It is nothing more than religious tantrum throwing over their litteralist view of theological accounts being challenged by scientific evidence.

Evolution has been observed and well documented. There are mountains of evidence. ID, depending on which theory you support, is either un-falsifiable or totally wrong. If you support the concept that we were created as we are then it is simply demonstrably wrong. If you support the one that states that evolution is correct BUT it was the will of some divine superior being then they have admitted that we have the evidence for evolution but have now made the leap that it could not have happened without god. However they fail to find any supporting evidence beyond what has already been evidenced under evolution.

Evolution is science. Id is not. There is no logical requirement to accept that rocks are edible if bread is edible.

What your thoughts about the fetus ?

The fetus developed and created in the womb, do you think the fetus becomes a new creation or a new evolver (of course this word doesn't exit yet) ?