There may be other reasons as to why ID is in fact not science, but I don't think they have been put forward yet. I'm saying that as far as we can tell at the moment, it does seem to be the case that ID is science.
But I did think your video was one of the better anti-ID videos on youtube. It completely avoided the ad-hominem arguments and insults (verbal and/or pictorial) that frequently come up in this type of presentation. Well done for that.
The point I'm making is that once you get to that point, of claiming that physical laws themselves give rise to CSI, then whether or not you claim that the physical laws contain CSI themselves, or not, you can't argue for the existence of God scientifically because there is no "gap" from "noCSI" at time(n-1) to "CSI" at time(n) that could be evidence of an intervention by a designer.
Believing in a "no-intervention" designer, is scientifically equivalent to considering a designer superfluous.
The theistic evolutionists do not make a scientific claim about the existence of a God outside of space and time. In fact they specifically say they're making a faith claim. Mary Schweitzer (who discovered dinosaur bones that seemed to be young - thus of great interest to YEC's) made a statemnt something like: "I think it's amazing how God set up the universe to do this and that yet left no evidence of doing so. How cool is that?"
She is a theistic evolutionist, and DOES think it's "cool"!
The reason ID as it has come to be defined is different to theistic evolution, is because ID does make a claim that denies the possibility (if ID is correct that is) that life could have come from natural unguided natural processes. The ID claim is this:
"Intelligent design is the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
But if science can observe the origin of CSI all the way back to where CSI emerges from natural laws, then ID muist become the equivalent of theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists hold that God "somehow" oversaw the emergence of life from non-life through the agency of natural laws alone. But they deny ID. In fact they claim that there is no legitimate scioentific evidence for a creator. Rather the knowledge of a creator comes not from science, but from faith. (NOMA and all that.)
I disagree with your video's statement at the end (time 9:17)
When science can explain the origins of CSI (complex specified information) right back to the known start of the universe, then ID becomes a matter of faith, rather than a matter of an observeable "gap" between an observation of (CSI + physical laws) at time t(n), and the observation of (physical laws alone) at time t(n-1).
Such a gap indicates (for IDists) a legitimate argument for the intervention of an intelligent designer...
I.D. , Intentionally Deceptive. Outside space and time, would be outside reality. Anything outside reality is not real by definition. Science has nothing to say about things that are not real. I.D. fails on every level even if you move the bar back to the begining.
The no designer worth his salt argument is a good argument to disprove a designer that is talked up to be perfect. A perfect being would only be able to create perfection, not the overwhelming flaws we see today. I use the analogy of building a house. If I build a house for a family and it collapses due to poor building and foundation, is the house to blame, or am I to blame? Of course I am the one to blame. It shows a lack of building knowledge and a crappy rush-job. Not perfection.
Their are 2 reasons why ID should not be aloud to be taught in schools.
1 ID is not Science for the fact that it cannot be proven wrong. To try to do so you would have to read all the bibles known to man and disprove them against one another and every bible is true to that denomination. So that proves that ID is not a science.
And the second is, Church and State is prohibited in the United States. To do so is a direct violation of the Constitution. A fight we are losing do to uneducated US citizen that give up their rights to win something that has no importance.
In your terms you would probably tell me that i am wasiting my time and thus that is the reason why me having this belief is a negative thing, but you cannot tell me how I am being false because then you would have to have proof that this being that potientially could exist, doesn't exist, but how could you prove that something doesn't exist if it can never be proven.
Thus, how can this be a negative thing if I believe the latter, if it cannot be disproven nor proven. I do not lose the understanding how anything could exist by the explaination by science.
the way I see it, is I understand and believe in every aspect of how science explains the creation of life because science can be proven, but then I want to believe that this intelligent designer was the one who created the laws and functions of how science explains and proves life.
@LatiasDita Respectfully, this is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. Supplanting unkowns with "god did it" is a very poor way of advancing scientific knowledge. If you are content with this go for it. But if everyone was content with saying if we can't explain it now then god did it. There would be no such thing as scientific advancement, as there would be no reason to postulate different ideas.
I am the sister of Latiasdita, hi, and you did not tell me how my belief that this intelligent designer made all the processes of science function the way they are to create whatever exists is false? I know you said its how I "escape" your arguement, but tell me why this escaping of my arguement is wrong.
@LatiasDita - "... you did not tell me how my belief that this intelligent designer made all the processes of science function the way they are to create whatever exists is false?"
That wasn't the intent of this video. This video was created to show how ID cannot be considered science.
I cannot disprove the hypothesis because I cannot test it. But, as a pragmatist, I do not believe it survives the criteria of adequacy. Therefore, I dismiss it as a bad hypothesis..it explains nothing.
Falsifiability? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Philosophers of science dont REALLY take this seriously. Falsificationism is plagued with problems. To start, it doesn't account for the positive knowledge that Science gives us. Furthermore, it doesn't allow us to infer certain laws of nature.
"Falsificationism is plagued with problems. " - migkillertwo
Exactly. This is why most philosophers of science agree that testing is a comparative process using something like the criteria of adequacy. The evidence alone does not dictate which hypothesis is more rational to choose. We might hold to some hypotheses in the face of adverse evidence simply because they perform better in other areas, such as scope, fruitfulness, simplicity and conservatism.
But unfalsifiability does not make it wrong; what does that is in fact the introduction of a plausible (and testable) alternate explanation.... which exists, indeed, as to evolution, but not as to the existence of a Universe capable of supporting evolution itself!!
And, the reason the panda's thumb and the blind spot are bad for ID is not merely that they are flaws which show poor design; if a Panda had a dense eight-foot-long set of antlers which made it almost impossible for the thing to move around, that would be really horrendous design, but so unlikely to evolve naturally that it would almost require a designer!! The flaws matter because they are explicable by path-of-least-resistance evolution!!
@crazypills2 Then we extrapolate its minimally necessary characteristics from the nature of the Creation -- it must be precisely intelligent enough and powerful enough to set forth a Universe of the type we see before us; but (oddly enough) it can not be more powerful than that, for it must also have a rational motivation to create a rationally ordered Universe, and all reasonable motivations for such Creation require that it be the most efficient way for it to fulfill a quite urgent need....
"Then we extrapolate its minimally necessary characteristics from the nature of the Creation..." - PanDeism
How do you independently justify these assumptions of yours? Auxiliary assumptions just can't be created to make a hypothesis look good or bad. The only way to comparatively evaluate hypotheses is that each must make predictions that differ. This is accomplished through auxiliary assumptions. But, these assumptions must have some basis in reality (i.e. be justified). ID doesn't offer this
"I think the point is that anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle something you have to assume but cannot prove" - todaysthought
I agree that we all have presuppositions of which we cannot be certain. However, I don't believe that knowledge requires certainty. Instead, the pragmatist can accept things as knowledge based on criteria such as testability and fruitfulness.
"Its an axion to even suggest imperfections exist..." - MrSoyouthink
I'm not sure how this relates to my video and my "major flaw." I asked for clarification and all you did was restate what you previously said.
Let me phrase my question: even if saying imperfections exist is an axiom (which I don't concede), how does this result in a "major flaw" with my argument? Did you watch the video?
"So would you say the theory of evolution is falsifiable? " - Blogrich55
Both testable (through predictions) and falsifiable. Popper initially denied that evolution was falsifiable, but later retracted the statement.
One of the problems with falsifiability is found in the Quine-Duhem thesis. When faced with adverse data, supporters of a hypothesis can simply apply ad-hoc auxiliary assumptions. Therefore, good practice requires that auxiliary assumptions be justified.
Actually, the prevailing theory today involves oceanic hydrothermal vents. Research has shown amino acids forming via natural chemical reactions. Just look up the Miller-Urey experiment and similar tests.
I suggest you learn something about a scientific theory before you attempt to mock it.
@pyrite13 abiogenesis is still unproven. Life does NOT come from lifeless matters. You'd better re-examine the Miller-Uret experiment. Oh, and look into the alleged evolution of fruit flies while you''re at it ROFLOL
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NOT TRUE NOT TRUE NOT TRUE!!!" doesn't change the facts. I'm sorry, but your previous statement is just flat wrong.
And the method for determining what is true and what is false is FALSIFIABILITY! If you make a prediction, there must be an outcome that would let you know you are wrong.
All evolutionary science clearly states that humans evolved from an early ancestor of all primates, which in turn evolved from early mammals, which in turn evolved from early tetrapods, and so on.
If we found human fossils dating back to before the evolution of mammals, it would disprove human evolutionary theory.
Given the amount of evidence for evolution, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is happening and next to nothing can be discovered to prove that it isnt.
Precambrian bunny would in no way falsify evolution, it would however hint that time travel is possible. Crocoduck would indicate that twisted scientist is playing with genetic engineering.
New life form forming out of nothing would hint at unknown technology or phenomena and possibly lead to discovery that present life on this planet evolved from more then one original ancestor, thus some branches of current evolutionary tree actually are separate evolutionary trees.
Do you even know what "falsify" means? Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
The fossil of an animal such as a land mammal (bunny) being discovered and dated to a period before we know them to have evolved would prove evolution false. No such animal has...
I agree that evolution is heavily supported by evidence. However, for a theory to be scientific it MUST BE falsifiable. There must be a logical way to demonstrate it is wrong, unlike religion which asserts it's truth through apologetics making it indistinguishable from fantasy.
"God can't be disproven because he exists outside reality" is an unfalsifiable statement. How do you prove it wrong? "Gravity makes things fall down." is falsifiable. Show something falling up.
As I understand it, once theory is supported by a lot of evidence, new discovery can indicate anomaly and further examination possibly would lead to improvement of original theory, but would not completely falsify it.
For a scientific experiment to be valid it must have a conceivable positive and negative result. If I propose that applying conditions A to item B will result in outcome C; then I must also understand that my hypothesis is wrong if I get outcome D, E, F, or G....or a null outcome.
Falsifiability is simply a result that would show your hypothesis is wrong. Every theory MUST have this hypothetical result presented to be considered valid.
Because all evidence to this point indicates that prior to the Cambrian Explosion 530-580 mya all life was simple, water dwelling creatures. Nothing as sophisticated as warm blooded mammals existed. A genuine pre-cambrian bunny fossil would directly refute our current understanding of how these more modern life forms came to be.
I suggest you watch Thunderf00t's "Why do people laugh at creationists" pt. 15 for more details. You clearly do not understand the term falsifiability.
My point is that one anomaly (lets take pre-cambrian bunny fossil) would not falsify evolution theory because all the evidence would still point to evolution...
I understand the term falsifiability, I just do not agree with overconfident assertions made by so many...
When Newton come up with the theory that gravity causes objects to fall to the ground when dropped, it is/was testable by dropping objects and falsifiable if object did not fall.
When theory is tested for countless times and never failed, is it still reasonable to say that gravity can be falsified if one object did not fall when dropped? Scientists can say YES, but I bet that if I present stone which does not fall when dropped and no one could figure out why given stone does not act as predicted by theory of gravity, scientists would still be convinced that I use some king of trick and not for a moment will they thing that theory of gravity is disproved.
"Yes it would. If the fossil was valid, evolutionary theory would simply not be able to explain the existence of such a discovery."
It would still be able to explain how, when and where bunnies originated. Considering all the information we have about the habitat 1 billion years ago, probability that population of bunny like creatures could have lived at that time is next to 0, right?
So, will scientists toss out all the evidence from countless independent sources which indicate that bunny could not have naturally lived 1 billion years ago and declare that evolution is wrong?
Wouldn't it be more logical to make new hypothesis that modern bunny could have been artificially transported billion years in the past, died instantly and fossilized, and work to test it?
"I do not understand the need to postulate something not yet observed to make claim that it would falsify given theory."
Then you don't understand science. If I claim that all swans are white, how would I know i'm wrong? Find a black swan. The possibility must be considered for the theory to have any validity.
"That's an axiom you know? To say that there are imperfections is an axiom. Major flaw in your point of view. MAJOR. Do you get that?" - MrSoyouthink
I'm sorry, but I don't get it...not at all. First of all, on what basis do you consider "there are imperfections" to be an axiom? My definition of an axiom is a self-evident proposition whose denial is self-refuting. I'm not even sure that "there are imperfections" qualifies as a presupposition. I believe I can deduce that conclusion.
I would argue that the idea that ID is a "hypothesis" is total rubbish since there were no observations, there was no data used, to conclude ID in the first place.
As I understand it, a hypothesis is the result of documenting some kind of phenomina and trying to explain it. If your explaination is proven through further observation, then it becomes a theory.
ID does not have any real data or phenomenon behind it. It is just a guess, a "shot in the dark," therefore not a hypothesis.
It's not even a shot in the dark either, seeings as its premise goes completely AGAINST observed facts, let alone the stuff you mentioned. It's what scientists call "not even wrong".
I know what you mean. I did one "sorta science" video, which was a book review of Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True". Extremely rewarding in that not only was it one of my personal favorites that I'm proud of, but has the most or second most views of all my videos - plus I still get comments on it nearly weekly. But it was much more time consuming than my "usual" as you might guess. :)
ID has always been nothing but a Trojan Horse for slipping the biblical creation story into public schools. When the courts ruled in the mid-80's that creationism couldn't be taught in public schools, the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case showed the Discovery Institute's literature went from using the phrase *creation science* to a garbled mixture of two phrases and finally to the phrase *intelligent design*. Nothing else in their literature changed.
While we're on the subject of testablity, the notion that ID is creationism in disguise can be easily tested. Just tell a hardcore IDer that you used to believe in evolution but are now starting to think that maybe ID is true. I predict a very high probibility of getting a response something like *AHA, so you admit that god created the universe in six days and the world is 6000 years old!*
"I predict a very high probibility of getting a response something like 'AHA, so you admit that god created the universe in six days and the world is 6000 years old!' " - TheMudbrooker
You might be right, but probability statements cannot be falsified :-)
Perhaps my understanding of falsifiability is wrong, but I think you're asking wrong question. On level you picked every theory if "falsifiable". IMO "real" falsifiability lays a bit deeper and I would rather ask a question - 'what kind of evidence would be required to "disprove" ID?'
Also - new theory should also encompass all evidence gathered by previous theory, give better explanations and give testable predictions about things that old theory couldn't explain.
" 'real' falsifiability lays a bit deeper and I would rather ask a question - 'what kind of evidence would be required to 'disprove' ID?'" - KristoffDoe
Ok, what kind of evidence would 'disprove' ID?
Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science is important, but I believe falsifiability lacks the ability to explain what makes a hypothesis testable. For instance, how would I falsify the following proposition: "If I flip this coin, I have a 50% chance it will land on heads?"
That's the point - ID proponents do not give you the (honest) answer to that question. Every evidence is evidence for the designer. Their proposition of falsifiability is laughable and dishonest, knowing what we know about history of the Earth. (Not surprising knowing that they're just creationists in disguise...)
On the other hand - you can easily think of evidence that would falsify evolution.
Yes, falsifiability is not an absolute tool, but useful one and in this case works quite well.
"Nice one, but I have to agree with the comment below that the 'not worth his salt' argument is a good argument to use in certain scenarios." - trifelgeputinage
I agree, especially in the context of creationism. However, I don't think the objection does much to demonstrate why the hypothesis isn't scientific. The fact that it isn't testable, simple, or fruitful eliminates it from being a viable hypothesis.
ID is not an explanation of anything. If I see a guitar and ask "how did this get here?" and someone replies "Some people made it" I still have no clue how it came to be. Same if I ask "How did the universe get here". "Someone made it" isn't a reply that make me understand anything really about how the universe came into being.
Excellent point. Testability alone doesn't determine which hypothesis is the most rational to choose. When comparing hypotheses, we look at other criteria as well, including scope, fruitfulness, simplicity, and conservatism.
Yeah! If I want to know more about guitar building, I'm not very interested in getting to know the personality of the people who made guitars prior to me. I'm more interested in the art of making guitars. The teleology of guitar-making (longing for music made guitars etc.) does not explain much. If we invoke ID we're still having fundamental questions regarding the practical workings of how the universe is made. And for some reason, theists are less interested in that question than scientists.
I have to diasagree slightly with the "not worth his salt" argument not working. Complexity (e.g. human eye) and apparent perfect adaptveness (e.g. bomadier beetle) are flagships of the IDer's argument of god's perfection. Therefore, it is only too right to counter this by pointing out the imperfections and inefficiencies. As for the falsifiable argument spot on. As has happen with increased knowledge, the IDers can push god back further in time as well as in space.
"I have to diasagree slightly with the "not worth his salt" argument not working."- pilgrimpater
Thanks for the comment
Although the argument works against creationism, I don't think it demonstrates WHY ID isn't science. For you to use the argument, you must accept the auxiliary assumption that the designer had certain abilities and goals. However, how do you know anything about the designer? Unjustified auxiliary assumptions are meaningless when determining scientific merit
There may be other reasons as to why ID is in fact not science, but I don't think they have been put forward yet. I'm saying that as far as we can tell at the moment, it does seem to be the case that ID is science.
But I did think your video was one of the better anti-ID videos on youtube. It completely avoided the ad-hominem arguments and insults (verbal and/or pictorial) that frequently come up in this type of presentation. Well done for that.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
By the way, just to be upfront about it, I'm a YEC. But not an unreasonable one. I know that YEC has quite a few "unhandled exceptions". :-)
tubewatch59 1 month ago
The point I'm making is that once you get to that point, of claiming that physical laws themselves give rise to CSI, then whether or not you claim that the physical laws contain CSI themselves, or not, you can't argue for the existence of God scientifically because there is no "gap" from "noCSI" at time(n-1) to "CSI" at time(n) that could be evidence of an intervention by a designer.
Believing in a "no-intervention" designer, is scientifically equivalent to considering a designer superfluous.
tubewatch59 1 month ago
The theistic evolutionists do not make a scientific claim about the existence of a God outside of space and time. In fact they specifically say they're making a faith claim. Mary Schweitzer (who discovered dinosaur bones that seemed to be young - thus of great interest to YEC's) made a statemnt something like: "I think it's amazing how God set up the universe to do this and that yet left no evidence of doing so. How cool is that?"
She is a theistic evolutionist, and DOES think it's "cool"!
tubewatch59 1 month ago
The reason ID as it has come to be defined is different to theistic evolution, is because ID does make a claim that denies the possibility (if ID is correct that is) that life could have come from natural unguided natural processes. The ID claim is this:
"Intelligent design is the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
tubewatch59 1 month ago
But if science can observe the origin of CSI all the way back to where CSI emerges from natural laws, then ID muist become the equivalent of theistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists hold that God "somehow" oversaw the emergence of life from non-life through the agency of natural laws alone. But they deny ID. In fact they claim that there is no legitimate scioentific evidence for a creator. Rather the knowledge of a creator comes not from science, but from faith. (NOMA and all that.)
tubewatch59 1 month ago
I disagree with your video's statement at the end (time 9:17)
When science can explain the origins of CSI (complex specified information) right back to the known start of the universe, then ID becomes a matter of faith, rather than a matter of an observeable "gap" between an observation of (CSI + physical laws) at time t(n), and the observation of (physical laws alone) at time t(n-1).
Such a gap indicates (for IDists) a legitimate argument for the intervention of an intelligent designer...
tubewatch59 1 month ago
I.D. , Intentionally Deceptive. Outside space and time, would be outside reality. Anything outside reality is not real by definition. Science has nothing to say about things that are not real. I.D. fails on every level even if you move the bar back to the begining.
groovyengineer 1 year ago
Comment removed
groovyengineer 1 year ago
The no designer worth his salt argument is a good argument to disprove a designer that is talked up to be perfect. A perfect being would only be able to create perfection, not the overwhelming flaws we see today. I use the analogy of building a house. If I build a house for a family and it collapses due to poor building and foundation, is the house to blame, or am I to blame? Of course I am the one to blame. It shows a lack of building knowledge and a crappy rush-job. Not perfection.
DarthMocha 1 year ago
The fact that this issue is up for dabate in the US and actually has taken time in a court of law, can only lead me to say one thing.
JESUS CHRIST AMERICA, GROW THE FUCK UP.
In my worldview you are as of now lumped together with other crazy fanatic backward countries like Iran and north Korea.
soskid 1 year ago
7:40 - Watch "The Origin of Genes" by cdk007
Venaloid 1 year ago
@Venaloid "7:40 - Watch "The Origin of Genes" by cdk007"
Thanks.
crazypills2 1 year ago
Nature is FAR too beautiful and subtle and complex
to have been created by your god.
He has very few ideas:
people grumble? Kill 'em!
people follow other gods? Kill 'em!
people eat the wrong food? Kill 'em!
people work on the wrong day of the week? Kill 'em!
people wear mixed-fibre clothes? Kill 'em!
What a one-track mind.
No creativity or complexity there.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Youtube needs to fix its its Text comment to allow more text.
Bloodhammer1967 2 years ago
Their are 2 reasons why ID should not be aloud to be taught in schools.
1 ID is not Science for the fact that it cannot be proven wrong. To try to do so you would have to read all the bibles known to man and disprove them against one another and every bible is true to that denomination. So that proves that ID is not a science.
Bloodhammer1967 2 years ago
And the second is, Church and State is prohibited in the United States. To do so is a direct violation of the Constitution. A fight we are losing do to uneducated US citizen that give up their rights to win something that has no importance.
Bloodhammer1967 2 years ago
In your terms you would probably tell me that i am wasiting my time and thus that is the reason why me having this belief is a negative thing, but you cannot tell me how I am being false because then you would have to have proof that this being that potientially could exist, doesn't exist, but how could you prove that something doesn't exist if it can never be proven.
LatiasDita 2 years ago
Thus, how can this be a negative thing if I believe the latter, if it cannot be disproven nor proven. I do not lose the understanding how anything could exist by the explaination by science.
LatiasDita 2 years ago
the way I see it, is I understand and believe in every aspect of how science explains the creation of life because science can be proven, but then I want to believe that this intelligent designer was the one who created the laws and functions of how science explains and proves life.
LatiasDita 2 years ago
@LatiasDita Respectfully, this is called the "God of the Gaps" argument. Supplanting unkowns with "god did it" is a very poor way of advancing scientific knowledge. If you are content with this go for it. But if everyone was content with saying if we can't explain it now then god did it. There would be no such thing as scientific advancement, as there would be no reason to postulate different ideas.
3vi14n931 1 year ago
I am the sister of Latiasdita, hi, and you did not tell me how my belief that this intelligent designer made all the processes of science function the way they are to create whatever exists is false? I know you said its how I "escape" your arguement, but tell me why this escaping of my arguement is wrong.
LatiasDita 2 years ago
@LatiasDita - "... you did not tell me how my belief that this intelligent designer made all the processes of science function the way they are to create whatever exists is false?"
That wasn't the intent of this video. This video was created to show how ID cannot be considered science.
I cannot disprove the hypothesis because I cannot test it. But, as a pragmatist, I do not believe it survives the criteria of adequacy. Therefore, I dismiss it as a bad hypothesis..it explains nothing.
crazypills2 2 years ago
"ID is unfalsifiable"
Falsifiability? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Philosophers of science dont REALLY take this seriously. Falsificationism is plagued with problems. To start, it doesn't account for the positive knowledge that Science gives us. Furthermore, it doesn't allow us to infer certain laws of nature.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
"Falsificationism is plagued with problems. " - migkillertwo
Exactly. This is why most philosophers of science agree that testing is a comparative process using something like the criteria of adequacy. The evidence alone does not dictate which hypothesis is more rational to choose. We might hold to some hypotheses in the face of adverse evidence simply because they perform better in other areas, such as scope, fruitfulness, simplicity and conservatism.
crazypills2 2 years ago
But unfalsifiability does not make it wrong; what does that is in fact the introduction of a plausible (and testable) alternate explanation.... which exists, indeed, as to evolution, but not as to the existence of a Universe capable of supporting evolution itself!!
PanDeism 2 years ago
And, the reason the panda's thumb and the blind spot are bad for ID is not merely that they are flaws which show poor design; if a Panda had a dense eight-foot-long set of antlers which made it almost impossible for the thing to move around, that would be really horrendous design, but so unlikely to evolve naturally that it would almost require a designer!! The flaws matter because they are explicable by path-of-least-resistance evolution!!
PanDeism 2 years ago
"But unfalsifiability does not make it wrong..." - PanDeism
No, it just makes it not science. The hypothesis is untestable, as we know nothing regarding the alleged designer.
crazypills2 2 years ago
@crazypills2 Then we extrapolate its minimally necessary characteristics from the nature of the Creation -- it must be precisely intelligent enough and powerful enough to set forth a Universe of the type we see before us; but (oddly enough) it can not be more powerful than that, for it must also have a rational motivation to create a rationally ordered Universe, and all reasonable motivations for such Creation require that it be the most efficient way for it to fulfill a quite urgent need....
PanDeism 2 years ago
"Then we extrapolate its minimally necessary characteristics from the nature of the Creation..." - PanDeism
How do you independently justify these assumptions of yours? Auxiliary assumptions just can't be created to make a hypothesis look good or bad. The only way to comparatively evaluate hypotheses is that each must make predictions that differ. This is accomplished through auxiliary assumptions. But, these assumptions must have some basis in reality (i.e. be justified). ID doesn't offer this
crazypills2 2 years ago
"I think the point is that anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle something you have to assume but cannot prove" - todaysthought
I agree that we all have presuppositions of which we cannot be certain. However, I don't believe that knowledge requires certainty. Instead, the pragmatist can accept things as knowledge based on criteria such as testability and fruitfulness.
Are you a philosophical skeptic?
crazypills2 2 years ago
Sweetness. Thanks for the great vids.
albanaeon 2 years ago
"Thanks for the great vids." - albanaeon
Thanks.
crazypills2 2 years ago
"Its an axion to even suggest imperfections exist..." - MrSoyouthink
I'm not sure how this relates to my video and my "major flaw." I asked for clarification and all you did was restate what you previously said.
Let me phrase my question: even if saying imperfections exist is an axiom (which I don't concede), how does this result in a "major flaw" with my argument? Did you watch the video?
crazypills2 2 years ago
So would you say the theory of evolution is falsifiable?
Blogrich55 2 years ago
"So would you say the theory of evolution is falsifiable? " - Blogrich55
Both testable (through predictions) and falsifiable. Popper initially denied that evolution was falsifiable, but later retracted the statement.
One of the problems with falsifiability is found in the Quine-Duhem thesis. When faced with adverse data, supporters of a hypothesis can simply apply ad-hoc auxiliary assumptions. Therefore, good practice requires that auxiliary assumptions be justified.
crazypills2 2 years ago
@Blogrich55:
Yes. You can test evolutionary theory in many ways, or test the predictions it makes. Ken Miller has a video showing just such a test. v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Kergillian 2 years ago
@ Kergillian Sure, sure, of course! ROFLOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Yes. Show me a precambrian bunny. Show me a crocoduck. Show me any life form being conjured out of nothing.
pyrite13 2 years ago
@pyrite13 Yes, we all know that life began in the primordial slime of lifeless matter. Abiogenesis is the bomb, is it not? ROFLOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Actually, the prevailing theory today involves oceanic hydrothermal vents. Research has shown amino acids forming via natural chemical reactions. Just look up the Miller-Urey experiment and similar tests.
I suggest you learn something about a scientific theory before you attempt to mock it.
pyrite13 2 years ago
@pyrite13 abiogenesis is still unproven. Life does NOT come from lifeless matters. You'd better re-examine the Miller-Uret experiment. Oh, and look into the alleged evolution of fruit flies while you''re at it ROFLOL
Blogrich55 2 years ago
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "NOT TRUE NOT TRUE NOT TRUE!!!" doesn't change the facts. I'm sorry, but your previous statement is just flat wrong.
pyrite13 2 years ago
@pyrite13 This I DO know about scientific theory:
It is ALWAYS subject to change. What they preach dogmatically as true today may be false tomorrow.
Blogrich55 2 years ago
And the method for determining what is true and what is false is FALSIFIABILITY! If you make a prediction, there must be an outcome that would let you know you are wrong.
All evolutionary science clearly states that humans evolved from an early ancestor of all primates, which in turn evolved from early mammals, which in turn evolved from early tetrapods, and so on.
If we found human fossils dating back to before the evolution of mammals, it would disprove human evolutionary theory.
pyrite13 2 years ago
Given the amount of evidence for evolution, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is happening and next to nothing can be discovered to prove that it isnt.
Precambrian bunny would in no way falsify evolution, it would however hint that time travel is possible. Crocoduck would indicate that twisted scientist is playing with genetic engineering.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
New life form forming out of nothing would hint at unknown technology or phenomena and possibly lead to discovery that present life on this planet evolved from more then one original ancestor, thus some branches of current evolutionary tree actually are separate evolutionary trees.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
Do you even know what "falsify" means? Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.
The fossil of an animal such as a land mammal (bunny) being discovered and dated to a period before we know them to have evolved would prove evolution false. No such animal has...
pyrite13 2 years ago
...been found.
I agree that evolution is heavily supported by evidence. However, for a theory to be scientific it MUST BE falsifiable. There must be a logical way to demonstrate it is wrong, unlike religion which asserts it's truth through apologetics making it indistinguishable from fantasy.
"God can't be disproven because he exists outside reality" is an unfalsifiable statement. How do you prove it wrong? "Gravity makes things fall down." is falsifiable. Show something falling up.
pyrite13 2 years ago
pyrite13, lets assume for a moment that 1 billion years old bunny fossil was found... How would it invalidate all the evidence for evolution of bunny?
...
Would something "falling up" falsify gravity or imply that given object somehow counteract effects of gravity?
I do not understand the need to postulate something not yet observed to make claim that it would falsify given theory.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
As I understand it, once theory is supported by a lot of evidence, new discovery can indicate anomaly and further examination possibly would lead to improvement of original theory, but would not completely falsify it.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
For a scientific experiment to be valid it must have a conceivable positive and negative result. If I propose that applying conditions A to item B will result in outcome C; then I must also understand that my hypothesis is wrong if I get outcome D, E, F, or G....or a null outcome.
Falsifiability is simply a result that would show your hypothesis is wrong. Every theory MUST have this hypothetical result presented to be considered valid.
pyrite13 2 years ago
Because all evidence to this point indicates that prior to the Cambrian Explosion 530-580 mya all life was simple, water dwelling creatures. Nothing as sophisticated as warm blooded mammals existed. A genuine pre-cambrian bunny fossil would directly refute our current understanding of how these more modern life forms came to be.
I suggest you watch Thunderf00t's "Why do people laugh at creationists" pt. 15 for more details. You clearly do not understand the term falsifiability.
pyrite13 2 years ago
I know that.
My point is that one anomaly (lets take pre-cambrian bunny fossil) would not falsify evolution theory because all the evidence would still point to evolution...
I understand the term falsifiability, I just do not agree with overconfident assertions made by so many...
When Newton come up with the theory that gravity causes objects to fall to the ground when dropped, it is/was testable by dropping objects and falsifiable if object did not fall.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
When theory is tested for countless times and never failed, is it still reasonable to say that gravity can be falsified if one object did not fall when dropped? Scientists can say YES, but I bet that if I present stone which does not fall when dropped and no one could figure out why given stone does not act as predicted by theory of gravity, scientists would still be convinced that I use some king of trick and not for a moment will they thing that theory of gravity is disproved.
futureorreligion 2 years ago
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Scientists do not simply ignore evidence that contradicts accepted theories. Religions, however, do.
pyrite13 2 years ago
Yes it would. If the fossil was valid, evolutionary theory would simply not be able to explain the existence of such a discovery.
Once you start asserting something to be true despite reliable evidence to the contrary, it ceases to be science and becomes faith.
I'm done with this debate until you learn how the scientific method actually works.
pyrite13 2 years ago
"Yes it would. If the fossil was valid, evolutionary theory would simply not be able to explain the existence of such a discovery."
It would still be able to explain how, when and where bunnies originated. Considering all the information we have about the habitat 1 billion years ago, probability that population of bunny like creatures could have lived at that time is next to 0, right?
futureorreligion 2 years ago
So, will scientists toss out all the evidence from countless independent sources which indicate that bunny could not have naturally lived 1 billion years ago and declare that evolution is wrong?
Wouldn't it be more logical to make new hypothesis that modern bunny could have been artificially transported billion years in the past, died instantly and fossilized, and work to test it?
futureorreligion 2 years ago
"I do not understand the need to postulate something not yet observed to make claim that it would falsify given theory."
Then you don't understand science. If I claim that all swans are white, how would I know i'm wrong? Find a black swan. The possibility must be considered for the theory to have any validity.
pyrite13 2 years ago
@Blogrich55 Yes it is falsifiable.
AV3NG3R 2 years ago
This is the most beautifully coherent and collected refutation of ID that I have ever come across.
Phecee 2 years ago
"This is the most beautifully coherent and collected refutation of ID that I have ever come across. " - Phecee
I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
crazypills2 2 years ago
"That's an axiom you know? To say that there are imperfections is an axiom. Major flaw in your point of view. MAJOR. Do you get that?" - MrSoyouthink
I'm sorry, but I don't get it...not at all. First of all, on what basis do you consider "there are imperfections" to be an axiom? My definition of an axiom is a self-evident proposition whose denial is self-refuting. I'm not even sure that "there are imperfections" qualifies as a presupposition. I believe I can deduce that conclusion.
crazypills2 2 years ago
"silly" - TodaysThought
In what way?
crazypills2 2 years ago
"Perhaps the "Designer" is imperfect. " - SilentStefan
Perhaps. This is why we can't use unjustified auxiliary assumptions to test our hypothesis.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Great vid man! I guess our "intelligent designer" likes to play Sims and Age of Empires from time to time, lol! ;D
Redbloodedsky 2 years ago
"I guess our "intelligent designer" likes to play Sims and Age of Empires from time to time, lol! ;D " - Redbloodedsky
You don't know her do you?
crazypills2 2 years ago
her?
Redbloodedsky 2 years ago
Nicely done you rock star you!
h8uall66 2 years ago
"Nicely done you rock star you! " - h8uall66
I'm still waiting for the damn groupies to show up...I hate waiting!
crazypills2 2 years ago
I would argue that the idea that ID is a "hypothesis" is total rubbish since there were no observations, there was no data used, to conclude ID in the first place.
As I understand it, a hypothesis is the result of documenting some kind of phenomina and trying to explain it. If your explaination is proven through further observation, then it becomes a theory.
ID does not have any real data or phenomenon behind it. It is just a guess, a "shot in the dark," therefore not a hypothesis.
LeksServices 2 years ago
It's not even a shot in the dark either, seeings as its premise goes completely AGAINST observed facts, let alone the stuff you mentioned. It's what scientists call "not even wrong".
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
Great vid, 5 stars
mjnpdx35 2 years ago
Nice job as usual CP2. Keep up the great work!
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
"Nice job as usual CP2. Keep up the great work!" - AncientAtheist
Sometimes I wonder if these videos are really worth the effort to make, but comments like this are helpful.
crazypills2 2 years ago
I know what you mean. I did one "sorta science" video, which was a book review of Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True". Extremely rewarding in that not only was it one of my personal favorites that I'm proud of, but has the most or second most views of all my videos - plus I still get comments on it nearly weekly. But it was much more time consuming than my "usual" as you might guess. :)
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Great video mate, tanks.
KallesKaviarNr1 2 years ago
Anything that is defined as ID could always be possible in reality. Excellent points Steve.
Dwicker64 2 years ago
"Excellent points Steve. " - Dwicker64
Thanks for the support Dwicker64.
crazypills2 2 years ago
ID has always been nothing but a Trojan Horse for slipping the biblical creation story into public schools. When the courts ruled in the mid-80's that creationism couldn't be taught in public schools, the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case showed the Discovery Institute's literature went from using the phrase *creation science* to a garbled mixture of two phrases and finally to the phrase *intelligent design*. Nothing else in their literature changed.
TheMudbrooker 2 years ago
While we're on the subject of testablity, the notion that ID is creationism in disguise can be easily tested. Just tell a hardcore IDer that you used to believe in evolution but are now starting to think that maybe ID is true. I predict a very high probibility of getting a response something like *AHA, so you admit that god created the universe in six days and the world is 6000 years old!*
TheMudbrooker 2 years ago
"I predict a very high probibility of getting a response something like 'AHA, so you admit that god created the universe in six days and the world is 6000 years old!' " - TheMudbrooker
You might be right, but probability statements cannot be falsified :-)
crazypills2 2 years ago
Curses, foiled by the rules of logic again!
TheMudbrooker 2 years ago
Perhaps my understanding of falsifiability is wrong, but I think you're asking wrong question. On level you picked every theory if "falsifiable". IMO "real" falsifiability lays a bit deeper and I would rather ask a question - 'what kind of evidence would be required to "disprove" ID?'
Also - new theory should also encompass all evidence gathered by previous theory, give better explanations and give testable predictions about things that old theory couldn't explain.
KristoffDoe 2 years ago
" 'real' falsifiability lays a bit deeper and I would rather ask a question - 'what kind of evidence would be required to 'disprove' ID?'" - KristoffDoe
Ok, what kind of evidence would 'disprove' ID?
Popper's contribution to the philosophy of science is important, but I believe falsifiability lacks the ability to explain what makes a hypothesis testable. For instance, how would I falsify the following proposition: "If I flip this coin, I have a 50% chance it will land on heads?"
crazypills2 2 years ago
That's the point - ID proponents do not give you the (honest) answer to that question. Every evidence is evidence for the designer. Their proposition of falsifiability is laughable and dishonest, knowing what we know about history of the Earth. (Not surprising knowing that they're just creationists in disguise...)
On the other hand - you can easily think of evidence that would falsify evolution.
Yes, falsifiability is not an absolute tool, but useful one and in this case works quite well.
KristoffDoe 2 years ago
Nice one, but I have to agree with the comment below that the 'not worth his salt' argument is a good argument to use in certain scenarios.
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
"Nice one, but I have to agree with the comment below that the 'not worth his salt' argument is a good argument to use in certain scenarios." - trifelgeputinage
I agree, especially in the context of creationism. However, I don't think the objection does much to demonstrate why the hypothesis isn't scientific. The fact that it isn't testable, simple, or fruitful eliminates it from being a viable hypothesis.
crazypills2 2 years ago
ID is not an explanation of anything. If I see a guitar and ask "how did this get here?" and someone replies "Some people made it" I still have no clue how it came to be. Same if I ask "How did the universe get here". "Someone made it" isn't a reply that make me understand anything really about how the universe came into being.
Censeo 2 years ago
"ID is not an explanation of anything." - Censeo
Excellent point. Testability alone doesn't determine which hypothesis is the most rational to choose. When comparing hypotheses, we look at other criteria as well, including scope, fruitfulness, simplicity, and conservatism.
crazypills2 2 years ago
Yeah! If I want to know more about guitar building, I'm not very interested in getting to know the personality of the people who made guitars prior to me. I'm more interested in the art of making guitars. The teleology of guitar-making (longing for music made guitars etc.) does not explain much. If we invoke ID we're still having fundamental questions regarding the practical workings of how the universe is made. And for some reason, theists are less interested in that question than scientists.
Censeo 2 years ago
I have to diasagree slightly with the "not worth his salt" argument not working. Complexity (e.g. human eye) and apparent perfect adaptveness (e.g. bomadier beetle) are flagships of the IDer's argument of god's perfection. Therefore, it is only too right to counter this by pointing out the imperfections and inefficiencies. As for the falsifiable argument spot on. As has happen with increased knowledge, the IDers can push god back further in time as well as in space.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
"I have to diasagree slightly with the "not worth his salt" argument not working."- pilgrimpater
Thanks for the comment
Although the argument works against creationism, I don't think it demonstrates WHY ID isn't science. For you to use the argument, you must accept the auxiliary assumption that the designer had certain abilities and goals. However, how do you know anything about the designer? Unjustified auxiliary assumptions are meaningless when determining scientific merit
Take care,
Steve
crazypills2 2 years ago
Nice demonstration of moving the goalpost.
jbz3 2 years ago
"Nice demonstration of moving the goalpost." -
jbz3
Thanks jbz3
crazypills2 2 years ago
great video. thanks.
dreamy2 2 years ago
Well made video. :)
Iced1992 2 years ago
excellent.
rozeboosje 2 years ago