Uncommon Descent, September 9, 2005
Reported on Bill Dembski’s blog under the heading “Another Ritualistic Denunciation of ID
(It’s also currently located on the RSNZ website here, but it’s not clear to me that that’s a permanent location.)
ID is an issue that I’m currently investigating, so I don’t yet have a firm opinion, although I’ll own up to having something of a predisposition. However, even without having a position on the substantive issue, there are some interesting observations to be made about the statement by the RSNZ.
- They use an appeal to authority in the form of other scientific organizations, without offering any argument of substance on the validity of ID.
- They refer vaguely to “many critiques of this theory” without citing any.
- The definition of falsifiability is utter nonsense- falsifiability means that an experiment can be conceived in which a particular outcome can be imagined that would prove the theory to be false.
- The suggestion that evidence has been selected to fit the theory is offered without any supporting argument