Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 12 2007,14:06) | DaveTard does a piss poor job of representing for ID:
| Quote | Popper’s Hypothesis: All swans are white.
ID Hypothesis: All abstract code driven information processing and manufacturing machinery, which isn’t simply a replication of prexisting machinery of the same type, was produced by intelligent agency.
Popper’s hypothesis, he said, could never be proven because there could never, even in principle, be a way of knowing that a black swan doesn’t exist somewhere. Popper said the key thing that made it a scientific hypothesis was that it could be falsified in principle by observing a single black swan.
ID’s hypothesis can never be proven because we can never know, even in principle, that no non-intelligent process is able to design these kinds of machines. ID’s hypothesis however can be falsified by observing a single non-intelligent process creating these kinds of machines. |
Jesus Dave, could you make ID's job any more difficult? All ID would need to do to revolutionize biology and shower Nobel prizes is demonstrate that just a few (or even one) complex molecular machines are the product of intelligent design.
|
Now DaveTard has promoted this doofusorial pronouncement to become a post of its own.
Dave has become ensnared in a bit of sophistry advanced by the ID movement for years solely for rhetorical purposes. Namely: if natural selection can be shown to be insufficient to produce specific instances of complexity, then ID becomes the explanation, by default, without actually advancing any positive propositions or evidence for design. The problem is constructed as "either A or B; hence if not A, then B." This enables attacks on evolution to masquerade as positive arguments for design (what else have they got?) But the assertion that A and B must be mutually exclusive and that A and B exhaust all of the possibilities is specious, as has been demonstrated many times.
Dave has everted and further confused this specious reasoning by asserting that if any complex molecular machine (use his definition) can be shown to have evolved by means of natural processes (absent "intelligent" intervention) then ID is disproved. This is actually false - it is certainly logically possible that complex molecular machines (as he defines them) may arise by more than one process. He has become hypnotized by the insistence that A and B remain mutually exclusive - a habit motivated both by the absence of positive evidence for B AND by the underlying motivation for the whole project: to show that supernatural (and, obviously, religious) explanations for life, and specifically human life, are REQUIRED.
(Vis swans, the appropriate Popperian assertion vis ID should be: "There are black swans." Regardless of the number of white swans that may also be observed, one must only is demonstrate the existence of a single black swan to support this assertion.
Hence, "There are intelligently designed structures." Regardless of the number of naturally arising complex structures that may be observed, all one must do is demonstrate the existence of a single designed structure to support this assertion.)
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
