Posted: Jan 20, 2011 10:55 am
Spearthrower wrote:Царь Славян wrote:I haven't specified a designer. And I haven't said that he is nfinite in any way. Not only that, but a designer could design things to look bad if he wanted to.
It's irrelevant of what you have said, it's what is necessary were there to be a designer of life, the universe and everything.
You've perfectly established my point and undermined the design hypothesis: If a designer could design things to purposefully hamper their designed purpose and to 'look bad' (not my argument), then there's no potential means of inferring design and the hypothesis can never satisfy simple logical principles, let alone empirical testing against reality.
Yes. That's exactly why the so-called "hypothesis" of an evolutionary "design" can never be science. The IDiots cut their own feet out from under themselves, by claiming that the designer could have designed it any way he wanted. It's not science because it can't be tested, not even in a thought experiment. (And dog only knows who could imagine a real-world test of the "design hypothesis"
). No matter what observation finds, the answer would always be the same: "The designer wanted it that way." An answer which is always the same, no matter what, is inherently unfalsifiable. Cue Tsar to bluster some more about how IDiocy really is science in 3, 2, 1 ...