Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:52, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (04:53, 31 January 2008) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*+*[[Debate:The science of Intelligent Design theory]]
==Supporting evidence== ==Supporting evidence==
-*[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science." Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Retrieved 1.30.08]+*[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science." Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Retrieved 1.30.08] - "Well, can it be tested? Are there falsifying observations? ID could potentially be disproved by observing a more primitive intermediate form of some part that has been touted as ‘too complex’ to be natural. But then, the individual running the ID experiment can alter his hypothesis to say that this new structure is that which was installed by the Intelligent Designer. Because of this, there is no part of ID that can be unequivocally falsified by material science.
 + 
 +:The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few."

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

The second part of ID calls for an external Designer. This idea is neither fully supported nor fully falsified by material observation. There is no scientific way to test for the presence or absence of the Designer, as the Designer is defined as unobservable, or at least, only observable by a chosen few."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.