- Discussion:
-It has been asserted that in order for a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it must satisfy the requirement of falsifiability, which was proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. In other words, it is assumed that a postulate cannot be regarded as a true scientific theory if it is unable to be shown that it is wrong. One objection to intelligent design is that it fails the test for falsifiability due to proponents attributing various designed features in our universe to a god which has been deemed an unknowable cause. However, it can be adequately demonstrated that intelligent design theory is not only scientific, but also falsifiable.
Cells literally contain several volumes of information. They contain genetic information known as DNA, which operates in a manner similar to a software program. It is an observable fact that an intelligent, conscious mind is the source of any information that is intended to be practical and useful. Examples would include a newspaper or a journal entry. It is an observable fact that functional systems which contain specified information are the product of a mind. A computer is a classic example of this point. There is no reason to believe that a cell is an exception to the rule, as it clearly has the fingermarks of a Designer. Stephen C. Meyer makes these pertinent remarks:
"This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. Radio astronomers have not found any such signal from distant star systems; but closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting — by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts — an intelligent source."
The claim that intelligent design should be rejected due to being unscientific is false because the concept is indeed based on empirical observation. It is derived from inferences made on biological and cosmological structures. DNA requires a mind because language requires intentional thinking. That certainly sounds like a theory that can be tested.
If one wishes to falsify intelligent design theory, then it needs to be demonstrated how intelligence could arise from nonliving scientific laws. Another approach that can be taken regarding the objection of intelligent design being unfalsifiable is to question the falsifiability of the principle of falsifiability. Some truths are regarded as self-evident. Examples would include human rights being inalienable and the law of non-contradiction. We also have to keep in mind that scientific laws (meaning reality and how it functions) are created and maintained through the continuing governance of God.
"University of Georgia professor Henry Schaefer III, one of the most widely cited chemists in the world with over 1,000 publications, supports ID [intelligent design]. So do other prominent scientists at places like Princeton, USC, and Baylor." (Intelligent Design: Why Scientists Are Abandoning Darwin, William Dembski & Sean McDowell)
Cells literally contain several volumes of information. They contain genetic information known as DNA, which operates in a manner similar to a software program. It is an observable fact that an intelligent, conscious mind is the source of any information that is intended to be practical and useful. Examples would include a newspaper or a journal entry. It is an observable fact that functional systems which contain specified information are the product of a mind. A computer is a classic example of this point. There is no reason to believe that a cell is an exception to the rule, as it clearly has the fingermarks of a Designer. Stephen C. Meyer makes these pertinent remarks:
"This connection between information and prior intelligence enables us to detect or infer intelligent activity even from unobservable sources in the distant past. Archeologists infer ancient scribes from hieroglyphic inscriptions. SETI’s search for extraterrestrial intelligence presupposes that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. Radio astronomers have not found any such signal from distant star systems; but closer to home, molecular biologists have discovered information in the cell, suggesting — by the same logic that underwrites the SETI program and ordinary scientific reasoning about other informational artifacts — an intelligent source."
The claim that intelligent design should be rejected due to being unscientific is false because the concept is indeed based on empirical observation. It is derived from inferences made on biological and cosmological structures. DNA requires a mind because language requires intentional thinking. That certainly sounds like a theory that can be tested.
If one wishes to falsify intelligent design theory, then it needs to be demonstrated how intelligence could arise from nonliving scientific laws. Another approach that can be taken regarding the objection of intelligent design being unfalsifiable is to question the falsifiability of the principle of falsifiability. Some truths are regarded as self-evident. Examples would include human rights being inalienable and the law of non-contradiction. We also have to keep in mind that scientific laws (meaning reality and how it functions) are created and maintained through the continuing governance of God.
"University of Georgia professor Henry Schaefer III, one of the most widely cited chemists in the world with over 1,000 publications, supports ID [intelligent design]. So do other prominent scientists at places like Princeton, USC, and Baylor." (Intelligent Design: Why Scientists Are Abandoning Darwin, William Dembski & Sean McDowell)
