>> ID is not testable. It's so vague that any time someone falsifies it,
>> the proponents can just claim that the theory says something slightly
>> different, and hence is not falsified.
>
> That's a different problem. Denying the evidence of the failed tests
> doesn't mean that it passed the tests. It only means the proponents are
> pushing the concept regardless of whether it has failed the tests.

No, I'm saying that the ID people keep changing their minds about which 
theory is the one they're advocating.

You don't change the theory half way through the experiment. That's not 
how science works. If your theory is so inadequately specified that you 
can change your mind about it every second Thursday, you're doing it wrong.

(But yes, the ID people *also* deny the evidence too...)

> ID is certainly testable: We've found no irreducibly complex
> substructures, we have overwhelming evidence of evolution, etc.

Correction: "Irreducibly complex" merely means that removing a single 
component makes the thing stop working. We've found *plenty* of things 
that are irreducibly complex. The point is, the ID people argue that 
"irreducibly complex" = "cannot evolve", which is false.

All of which is window dressing, really. All of the "evidence for ID" is 
actually "evidence against evolution". That's not how science works. 
Einstein didn't overturn Netwon's highly successful theory of motion by 
saying "hey, I think this is wrong". He did it by offering something 
better. ID rests on the sadly mistaken belief that "evolution is wrong" 
is the same thing as "ID is right". That's not how it works.

Post a reply to this message