Posted: Dec 07, 2015 12:22 pm
scott1328 wrote:THWOTH wrote:scott1328 wrote:The difference is that, Intelligent Design is compatible with every observation anyone could ever conceivably make; it is irrefutable in principle.
Theistic Evolutuion, in as much as it defers to the science, is refutable with respect to that science.
Can ID not be refuted on the basis that it is unfalsifiable perhaps?
No. But it can be ignored on the basis that it is irrefutable.
While ID might account for what we observe, to some degree, can it not be refuted on the basis that it is a less parsimonious reading of those observations? Are we not rationally obliged to put aside the least good explanations of the evidence and adopt the best, until or unless new info becomes available? Does this most simple of logical principles not serve to refute the argument of the ID proponent?
When ID proponents suggest that it only looks as if evolution is a natural, unguided phenomenon while this or that datapoint could equally be explained by a wilful agent so powerful that we wouldn't necessary be able to conclude their existence from its handiwork, they are applying an unnecessary condition to their argument and falling to the fallacy of composition. I think we do ourselves a rational disservice sometimes by taking IDers entirely at their word as self-declared dispassionate enquirers, for if one says to them, "OK, so if ID is true what difference does it make to our understanding of the natural realm?" they invariably thank you for holding the door open for God and push him through. We have to remember that Creationism in all its forms starts with its conclusion, and the fallacy in that means Creationism refutes its own arguments from the off.