Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (Patrick @ May 18 2018,10:03)|
|Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 18 2018,12:56)|
|D theory states that only intelligent design can generate complex functional information. Therefore, when we observe complex functional information in an obbject, then, and only then, we can safely infer design. Therefore, the procedure that infers design from complex functional information has no false positives, and many false negatives. Therefore, if we positively infer design from complex functional information we are right.|
This theory can be easily falsified: one single example of object exhibiting complex functional information, and whose origin from a non design system can be independently proved, will falsify it.
Therefore, ID theory is absolutely falsifiable.
First off, it is theoretically falsifiable, if you skip Pooch's demand for "proof" (good evidence by itself that his command of science is lacking). And it's falsified by the slavish derivation from ancestors seen in life that hasn't been seen in design, except perhaps in rare exceptions (like religious artifacts).
That said, what about design or evidence ever entailed or even suggested that "only it" can produce complex functional information? Of course that is the money shot, because they don't really care what design does, they just want to claim that evolution doesn't account for life. Science rarely, if ever, predicts that "only" one cause (or one type of cause) can produce something, it's a matter of what one cause entails and another does not, then looking for the entailed effects.
Can ID even claim that intelligence entails the production of complex functional information? I don't see how, even though we have plenty of evidence that it can and does produce it.
Why don't they just say, only God can make a tree, then reveal a tree? Obviously it's because they think that wrapping that nonsense up in a lot of pseudoscientific blather makes it sound less like a poem and more like science.
To be falsifiable, they would have to include a rigorous definition of "complex functional information" that can be calculated by anyone. I've never seen any of them provide such a thing.
Sure they have. I calculate that it looks designed to me...
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG