RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (500) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 2, general discussion of Dembski's site< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 384
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2008,21:48   

Aha - nullasalus brings up a good point in his response:

What are you defining Ďa scientific argumentí as here? Iím not arguing that you canít make reference to scientific knowledge to bolster or attack a design claim, or even a philosophical claim for that matter. But I donít think such arguments are themselves íscienceí - I guess you could say I go by the falsification standard. How do you falsify the claim that FSCI patterns donít arise from non-intelligent sources? Watch one spontaneously develop in nature? But even if you did, how do you know you didnít just witness an intelligence creating the FSCI, either in a front-loaded way or through some kind of intervention?

I asked Behe this same type of question at a conference one time, and got a side-step for answer: †what if we set up an experiment with lots of bacteria cultures, such as has been done by Lenski, and we found that a very novel pathway evolved. †How would we know that it hadn't been designed right there in our petri dishes? †In the absence of any knowledge whatsoever about any limitations of the designer, who is to say that he didn't step in and design the result in ways that just look like a plausible evolutionary set of genetic changes over multiple generations?

So nullasalus is right: there is no way to falsify the generic design inference because it has no empirical specifics.

  14997 replies since July 17 2008,19:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (500) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]