Talk:Falsifiability of creationism

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

This article...

This article has been created in the (probably vain) hope that believers in ID will contribute.--Bob_M (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't claim any formal scientific education beyond 'A' level Physics; but like virtually all Christians (I am a Messianic Jew) I do spend a lot of time thinking about these issues, attempting to reconcile scripture and scientific claims. I will attempt to contribute, Bob. לול 05:41, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I thought the article was finished already. I thought it was quite good. olliegrind 06:25, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Exactly, all arguments are in it already! MiddleMan 08:06, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Exactly, just like CP! One viewpoint, no balancing with counter-viewpoints, no room for debate. Your continuing group-think hypocrisy stuns me. לול 08:25, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Whoa! Hold the phone! Use the space to create an article! Don't worry about throwing typed grenades at each other. If you want, I'll help set up a template, but I think it should be easy enough to go through and set up an article critiquing the topic at hand. And when it comes to "balanced", I don't have a problem with the article concluding the same as the majority of the scientific community, as long as the arguments for things like ID are refuted specifically rather than dismissed out of hand. It should explain to an inquiring person why the scientific view is more likely to be right. Use the discussion page to hash it out. Enjoy.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:31, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Lulz, why do you not add any other viewpoints? We are open to verifiable information, no one will stop that. We are not like CP in the fact that we do not remove information that is shown to be true through experimentation. Just look at how TK had reverted my comment about the human and Chimp having a high percentage of chromosomal similarities on the genome page on CP.--TimS 08:33, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

(edit conflict) See my comment above - I'm not a scientist, I'm just a human being muddling through some of these concepts and trying to strike a balance between my faith and my culture, and the scientific "evidence" that seems to refute the foundations of the former. I am more than happy to add my viewpoints, but I don't like to go off at half cock and need time to think about what I want to add. לול 08:42, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

We don't have a lot of articles on religions per se, but it never hurts to have them. I know we don't have one on Messianic Judaism yet. If Lulz wants to do bio, even better.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 08:39, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Pal. Lulz, feel free to do the edits. I do not believe in going half cocked either:). You do not have to be a scientist to contribute, just that you should reference. Pal and I can check sources and verify legitimacy, after all that is often what we do when something new comes into the scientific and medical communities.--TimS 08:46, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Lutz. Great. If you can find something showing what ID proponents believe would refute their beliefs them please post it. You are quite right to check your facts before posting though, as it will probably come under some scrutiny. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

And good luck reconciling your beliefs with science. It is a difficult journey, and one of them usually ends up a little bent. But a worthwhile journey it is.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 14:49, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

A week and counting.

Well that's about a week and the crickets are still singing.--Bob_M (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Month be up soon.--Bob_M (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

This has got, to be one of our best articles!

And... will somebody feed those crickets? MiddleMan 06:17, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Watch it, I'm training them to have a taste for meat... --Kels 08:08, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Should we hold a celebration at the one month anniversary? --Bob_M (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, announce that we have 10,000 crickets already! MiddleMan 08:10, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Don't suppose that we've got any biologists with any knowledge of cricket breeding rates. (or diets)--Bob_M (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

2 Days and counting

Awh, I was saddened by the lack of responses to the article defending ID.--TimS 13:34, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, it would be nice to have something up. Perhaps we don't have the correct membership though? --Bob_M (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

RW is more ridiculous than blogs4brownback. Heart♥Gold^{Swarm like a hive} 10:36, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

At last! Some evidence that ID is science! Ah no. It's just - well something else. Should it go in the page anyway? At least we'd have something.--Bob_M (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Come on, we don't wanna hurt Psycheout's feelings, now do we?

MiddleMan 12:01, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Falsifications

Wouldnt a young earth disprove ID, we know that life on earth has not changed signifigantly in the last 50,000 years. If it was proven that the duration of the earth was less than 100,000-500,000 years that would seem to prove ID impossible. - Icewedge 10:31, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, yes. But ID and YEC are incompatible. Or have I missed your point?--Bob_M (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Oooh, ohh, I've got a good one - The clouds part, the voice comes down: "I didn't do any of it. It just sort of turned up. Sorry." - BonzaiRob 12/10/07

Heading into the second month now.

Well into the second month now.--Bob_M (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Why would you expect an ID supporter to disprove ID? The title asks them to disprove ID but the text asks them to provide a potential falsification of ID in order to validate it as science. I suggest a title change to reflect what is actually trying to be achieved.--Remarcsd 18:11, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, a better title could be used. The thing is this one was created after Disproving Evolution article which shows how evolution could theoretically be disproved - and hence is science. I used the same title for balance, but I agree that it's not really the best. I'm not sure what is the best title though As we all know, if something is to be science then it must be capable of being disproved. ID's proponents typically do not present their ideas in this way and I wanted an article to challenge them to do so and thus prove they have a science.--Bob_M (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I chimed in elsewhere saying better titles could be made. Clearer ones, that is. But also, let's face it, this site is not exactly teeming with angry YECs and IDers who would find these articles and build them. They are an "in joke" - albeit, a good one. Better titles, fine with me. Not that important, though. human^{be in} 03:09, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I propose the article naming thread now be confined to Talk:Disproving Creationism to avoid duplication.--Bob_M (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Sure, fine with me, very sensible. See you there if I think I have anything to add. human^{be in} 14:00, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

How to falsify Intelligent Design

TO falsify ID you must find something in nature that could have been designed better. For example if you could find an animal that lived in the sea, which contains a hige amount of oxygen, but that has to durface periodically to merely breathe, then that could be designed better (by adding gills). ^{— Unsigned, by: 172.206.203.176 / talk / contribs}

If we use that as the basis then we need look no further than ourselves. Human teeth could be better designed for example, those wisdom teeth are a real pain. Our eyes could be better designed, our backs, and our knees could do with a bit of logical re-design as well. But that's not really the point of the article.--Bob^{bing up} 13:18, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Wow Bob, looks like I have been really intelligently designed - I have never had those last four teeth. Pity about the appendix and baldness though. Genghis ^Marauding 13:28, 5 January 2008 (EST)

OK, you're an exception. You have intelligently designed teeth.--Bob^{bing up} 13:41, 5 January 2008 (EST)

That assumes the objective is the best design. Surely the designer is free to opt for a crap design? That might not make it very "intelligent" but it would still be "design". Auld Nick 13:19, 5 January 2008 (EST)

That is, in fact, what we have at the moment - unintelligent design. The point of the article is: "What would ID'rs accept as something which would disprove ID".--Bob^{bing up} 13:21, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Surely even a crap design requires some intelligence? What we have at the moment is not very good design, possibly as a result of limited intelligence. Auld Nick

So that means the universe was designed by a god with learning difficulties? Genghis ^Marauding 13:31, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, we were all created by a dyslexic dog. Thunderkatz^Ho! 13:32, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Perhaps he was just bad at keeping deadlines and had to throw something together at the last minute? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

It does seem like rather a rush job - trying to get the whole thing done in six days might have been done on a bet with another god, perhaps? Or perhaps our universe was just a practice run? (or an adolescent joke?) human 18:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Back to the original question, you mean something such as a dolphin, whale, or porpoise? --Whyhow (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that we are missing the point. :-) The existence of poorly designed life forms certainly gives the ID'rs the same problem that Old Earth evidence gives to Young Earthers - they must assume that god is either incompetent or playing games in order to incorporate the scientific evidence. The point being made in the article is that for ID to be science its supporters must say what evidence could theoretically disprove it. If they don't do this then it isn't science.--Bob^{bing up} 13:39, 5 January 2008 (EST)

In actuality, ID is unfalsifiable. There is no data set that could be observed for which the explanation could not be God the Intelligent Designer set it up that way on purpose. Stile4aly 14:03, 5 January 2008 (EST)

And consequently it cannot be science.--Bob^{bing up} 14:36, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Hear hear. Now, I personally believe that God used the Big Bang and evolution to create the universe and life, but I wouldn't expect my personal theological views to be taught in a classroom. And of course this makes me the type of person that Andy et al insist doesn't exist: Someone who has faith and believes in evolution. Though I'm Muslim anyway, so they'd prefer to see me branded and shipped off to a camp anyway. Stile4aly 15:34, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Hear hear as well. It's not science, but that still doesn't mean that we can't believe in it. It just falls outside its purview, and should be taught as such. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Well yes, you can believe in anything you like. However a case can be made that it's better to believe in things for which there is evidence. Furthermore, ID was specifically invented as a way of reinterpreting creationism in an attempt to give it specious scientific cover. That's why it exists. But of course there's nothing stopping you taking this creationist doctrine and re-reinterpreting it to take the science out again.--Bob^{bing up} 11:52, 6 January 2008 (EST)

I have it!

What if God comes and in Bible v.2.0 "Newest Testament" solemnly declares that ID is false? You can't doubt his words, so it would be a definitive proof that ID is false. Thus, ID can be falsified (it only requires some action by God). Am I wrong? A designed-for-intelligence Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 05:11, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry, wouldn't work. :-) Argument from authority --Bob^{bing up} 06:01, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Are you saying that God himself, if He appeared and spoke, would have to provide proof of what he declares? Wouldn't He be an authority above an 'argument from authority'? Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 06:46, 7 January 2008 (EST), contemplating funny scenarios, such as Mr. & Mrs. Adam questioning Him in the name of science, or God vs. Andy: which one has more PhDs?

Of course he would have to prove what he says. Suppose Allah, Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all turned up with him and and said different things? Just believing what one of them said because you felt he (or it) (or she) was more important would be an obvious case of Argument from authority.--Bob^{bing up} 07:44, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't in this case "first come first serve" apply? Asks Ed @^{but not the Poor one!}, who yesterday considered praying Zeus and his bunch of Gods after watching a Hercules TV-movie.

Um, no. Why would being the first to speak make someone right?--Bob^{bing up} 08:07, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Well, if for example Zeus and co. come to us, I for one will instantly convert and believe in what they preach. Possibly, if another God or system of gods later comes, I'll be ready to reconsider. And if they all appear at once, I'll take popcorn, sit down, and watch all the episodes of 'Celebrity God Deathmatch' on MTV. Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 08:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

"Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." :sagely nod: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:25, 7 January 2008 (EST)

It's kinda like MMORPGs. People flock in droves to the latest one. Leaving all of those that came before barren. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 08:16, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I basically agree that divine falsification is the only way to go, but I'd like to change the specifics slightly. Basically, God comes down from heaven with Jesus and, using his divine powers, draws all the world together in a huge stadium, where he triumphantly declares that ID is bunk and evolution is real. After this, the world's population is taken on a tour of heaven conducted by Charles Darwin and gets to watch Andy cast into a lake of fire. The last couple of things are necessary because to remove doubts that all of this is some sort of "test of faith." ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.106.84.253 / talk / contribs}

Sorry but it's still not science. For something to be falsifiable it must be possible to create or imagine an experiment which could show that the theory is untrue. "I'll ask God about it." isn't really an experiment is this sense, as science follows Methodological naturalism which precludes supernatural explanations anyway. Furthermore any weird faith-based Pseudoscience could be justified as "science" using the "God could disprove it" argument.--Bob^{bing up} 12:43, 19 January 2008 (EST)

This is all aside from the fact that you'd have to prove that the guy who claims to be God really is God. --Kels 12:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't the SFX establish that? human 14:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

You mean St. Francis Xavier? Founder of the Jesuits?--Bob^{bing up} 15:36, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Well, actually I had the smiting and the lake of fire in mind... human 16:07, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Well, it could be "merely" a god-like alien being running an elaborate scam, but that's awfully hard to disprove. I try to be pragmatic enough to worship any being capable of altering the laws of physics at whim that demands kowtowing...if it asks personally. --Gulik 19:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Disproving?

This article is probably not named well. No one is ever going to be able to prove ID is false. Of course, it is not incumbent upon anyone to prove it false; it is up to the ID proponents to prove it is true. They can't do that either. The issue is that one cannot study God or the existence thereof scientifically for reasons stated quite well by, of all people, PJR (see the final paragraph). The study of the natural world cannot study what lies outside of it. It would not be science anymore.

The issue is further compounded by the broad range of what ID can consist of. To some it is YEC in a new hat. To others, such as, I believe, Behe, it is a form of evolution. To them, life as we know it today evolved over billions of years from less complex forms, only for them it was not the randomness of Darwin's natural selection, but a process that is part of the plan of (a) God. The latter is actually substantially closer to the modern theory of evolution than it is to YEC. Truth be told, it would seem anyone who believes in both an omnipotent god and evolution would have to think that god had some involvement in the process (with the possible exception of deists, and such). But, since this isn't science, it can't be put into the cirriculum, any more than you can teach that the entire course of history as being "intelligently designed" by God. Let us hope they don't try that next (that argument, at least, is undermined by the fact that things such as the Holocaust and 9/11 would have to be part of God's plan too, and I don't think that would be popular). Though, like ID, it would be impossible to disprove. That's my view, anyway. DickTurpis 01:44, 4 March 2008 (EST)

In Behe's own words??

I am a total science donk. Therefore I am a little reticent about posting in the article on something I know nothing about. However at this site :http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/Mechanics_of_Testing.htm I found a quote from Behe that seems to indicate how he thinks ID could be proven. Here is the quote:

"In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

I certainly don't want to be a quote miner or quote Behe out of context but doesn't this provide an answer to the question? I note that the author of the paper in the website is skeptical (J. Kirk Fitzhugh) as to whether this could falsify ID. And, isn't the hypothetical experiment somewhat similar to that of a certain experiment done recently? Damo2353 06:21, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Interesting, and brave of Behe as well. It's also interesting that, as you suggest in your note, Lenski has indeed recently done something of a similar nature. Furthermore, Behe took Lenski's result and somehow managed to find sufficient cognitive dissonance to feel that it supported ID. Sooooo .... would this experiment really convince followers of ID that it had been falsified? --Bob^{bing up} 06:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's the point isn't it? I think that there is in reality nothing that would convince followers that it has been falsified. I suspect that even if someone did this exact experiment and it worked, Behe et al would find some reason to dismisss the results as irrelevant. Man, I'm becoming cynical in my old age. Damo2353 06:40, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

There is no way you can falsify ID. You can just falsify ONE claim at at time, for example bacterial flagellum. But for every bacterial flagellum science can explain, there will be another species, perhaps not discovered yet, for which the only explanation is Goddidit. Let me add that you can't prove ID either. It's not that if a scientist can't produce flagellum in ten thousand generations it means it could not happen in nature in billions of years. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 06:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

article v. talk page

I know I am guilty of particpating in one round of this, but why are we adding talk page-like comments to the article? I think we should grab everything in the "Response" section and copy it over here. By the way, Behe has given up on the flagellum now that real scientists have addressed it and shown how it could develop in simple, useful steps, IIRC. ħuman 16:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree, (And I'm guilty too) though we might want to put some of this somewhere into the article ..... somehow--Bob^{bing up} 16:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

OK should I (or someone else) delete everything on the page except for the introduction and the crickets. The article as it now stands looks a lot more like a talk page than an article. Has Behe formally retracted his "experimental disproof" or is that just conjecture?Damo2353 01:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, anyone should. Paste what is cut to a new heading below this one so the comments aren't lost. ħuman 03:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Disproving ID 1.0

The following is what was on the page as at 1/07/2008. It wasn't the best so it was decided to start afresh.

Scientists claim that Intelligent Design cannot be falsified and consequently is not science. This article includes all the arguments put forward by creationists showing how Intelligent Design could theoretically be disproved. Hmm...let me 'splain...a theory, to be scientific, must be falsifiable. Name some scenarios which, if they were true, would falsify (render incorrect), ID. They do not actually have to be factual...just potentially factual.

So far our only significant responses have been on the talk page. They are:

• Exactly, just like CP! One viewpoint, no balancing with counter-viewpoints, no room for debate. Your continuing group-think hypocrisy stuns me.

• RW is more ridiculous than blogs4brownback.

We await logical scientific responses.

Response

ID can be disproved if there is a significant fossil record that is date-able, and genomic studies to back up evolution, and if it is able to make testable predictions. And if you sew your mouth shut before you can say, "But Goddidit."--PalMD^{-Mmmm...Brains!} 16:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Come on Palm - since when were you a creationist?--Bob^{bing up} 18:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Just sayin', if it weren't for the whole illogic, non-disprovable, Goddidit thing, they might have a point.--PalMD^{-Mmmm...Brains!} 23:25, 6 January 2008 (EST)

So - if it weren't for the fact that it can't be science, it could be good science? To be honest I'm not sure if you're being serious or not. What say you we move the whole thing to a debate page? I know we have some ID'rs on site - they might welcome an opportunity to make a case anyway.--Bob^{bing up} 04:04, 7 January 2008 (EST)

We have IDers on site? Wow. Well, pages like this are the first place for them to make their case! human 06:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

I think we've got quite a few. But they all shall we say "Stay south of the NOMA" by insisting there is no evidence for their belief.--Bob^{bing up} 06:16, 9 January 2008 (EST)

At this site :http://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/Mechanics_of_Testing.htm I found a quote from Behe that seems to indicate how he thinks ID could be proven. The author of the paper didn't give information as to the name of Behe's book, only that it came from 2000. Here is the quote:

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

I disagree with Behe's proposal here. I think the experiment does show that the flagellum came from artificial selection, but the experiment says nothing about intelligent design. You could have processes that make "irreducible complex" structures that are evolutionary processes and others that are ID processes--there's no reason (except if you are a creationist) to think that evolution precudes ID and ID precludes evolution. Hence the whole "god set up evolution" argument. Sterile^rationalize 10:06, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Actually isn't this similar to what happened with Lenski's experiment anyway? Isn't it one of the may examples of evolution happening to produce something new and complicated - without the divine intervention required by ID?--Bob^{bing up} 10:43, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Surely the IDist or Creationist would merely claim that the ability to change thusly was "designed in"? Frohlich 10:48, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Nah, they'd just say it's "microevolution", and they're still e. coli regardless of what they can eat. No need for fancy jumps. --Kels 10:52, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Water pipes for some reason

I will stand up and defend this edit.

  

23:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

It is stupid, what does it have to do with the topic? Engineers allow for water expansion when constructing pipes, how is God involved? Please stick to the topic of the article instead of adding your own unsupported opinion. - User $\pi$ 23:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Following your analogy who is the home-owner? - User $\pi$ 23:23, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

This article is a test case. If I can't even express the view that Intelligent Design may be geared for optimal results (such as cooling the ocean with hurricanes taking priority over homeowners living on the beach) then this wiki will prove to be nothing more than a mirror image of Conservapedia.

  

23:26, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Your argument makes no sense in the context. We are dealing with the appearance of design in nature. The section is badly written and you are making it worse. Why do you think man made things such as water pipes and water front housing have to do with the topic? They are man-made just because you stuck them there and it was a shitty place is your fault, I get that. However the topic is natural design, like the way your appendix explodes and kills you is a bit poorly thought out, the way your wisdom teeth cause compaction is not good either. However these things are explained by evolution not ID. - User $\pi$ 23:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I looked at what was reverted. Xena, do you even think before editing? Or just spew whatever random crap you feel like on any article you come across? I am wholly behind the reversion. ħuman 23:42, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm a bit confused. You said "I will stand up and defend this edit." Are you planning to actually do so any time in the future, or is "edit war" what you actually meant to say instead of "defend"? --Kels 00:13, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Purpose of this article

I see that this article has morphed somewhat during its life. The original intention was that it should be for supporters of ID to put forward statements about ID which could hypothetically be disproved. This is because a subject is only science if hypothetically disprovable statements can be made about it. If not, it is simply faith and not science.

Such statements would have to be a positive statement about ID - from a supporter of ID - which if disproved, would cause that supporter to say, "OK, you got me. ID doesn't work." In other words it is for ID supporters to come up with potentially disprovable statements - not ID's critics.

It now seems to be an article by ID's critics which actually sets out to disprove ID. This is, of course fine, but it has moved from its original role of challenging ID'rs to show that ID is science.--Bob^{bing up} 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do miss its old form, although that whole "edited mercilessly" thing tends to do this. Sterile lighting 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to suggest that the content of this one be moved to : "Why ID isn't science" or something of that nature and reverting this one to tumbleweed with a link between the two articles explaining how they differ.--Bob^{bing up} 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... ħuman 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

falsifiability

According to this article, ID is' falsifiable, but still wrong. Not really in line with the intro.---brxbrx 19:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This site is amazing

Checking the anti-BS circuits in the usual places, I found someone talking about a book with the usual complaints about evolution and mixing in anthropic principle, fine-tuning arguments, complaining about the Multiverse theory (not precisely due to its infalsifiability) etc. and of course not only presenting as proof things that according to him science cannot explain (instead of being unable to explain for now), such as why some people who has genetic predisposition to suffer, say, a cancer of a given kind suffers it while others not. The author, of course, ended with gems as that YHWH behaved as appears in the OT because his morality evolved with time following the human one, and complaining about science being a faith and how secularism is extending everywhere (and probably more that was lost due to issues with interferences).

It turns out his arguments were these ones. I really like of this place how you have compiled all the BS used by them to attempt to prove their ideas (and why has to be their one and not one of those?). Panzerfaust (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ironically your Creationist acquaintance is correct about the evolution of YHWH's morality, just not in the way he thinks. --GrammarCommie (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't YHWHs morality evolve? Having set up 'one or many experiments' (Earth and humans, and 'wherever else live evolves in the universe') learning from what happens - or, as sentient species develop more subtle forms of argument/morality responding in kind (as with any educational process).

Those of us who accept 'evolution happens, and there are large bits of the jigsaw missing and parts we cannot explain, while 'weird things do happen and some things developed for one purpose are adapted to another, producing some strange or less than effective results' are unlikely to be convinced by creationism - and what creationist response is there to 'if God is so clever, why create a set up where it appears that the natural evolution without intelligent design seems to be far more viable?' (The response to arguments of the 'God set everything up and is just watching what happen' is Scots Not Proven.) Anna Livia (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But the thought that YHWH's morality changed implies that he learned/changed his mind and thus isn't perfectly infallible, which isn't necessarily what we're hearing all the time, right? As an omniscient being, YHWH should already have a fully-formed, final morality. I'm not saying this is the version you're talking about, but in creationism, it's usually pretty clear which god we're talking about.
RSamys (bla) 13:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So why doesn't God send down Jesus much earlier - even having him discuss with 'Adam and Eve and the serpent' the merits of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge?

There are 'two different things' - whether YHWH is omnipotent and 'understanding how the universe/multiverse and the sentients therein understand it and interact with God (whatever their understanding of the Deity is)' - one is static, the other is active (when I was a child i thought as a child...) and can be far more interesting (for God as well for us). Anna Livia (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That comment I bolded was in response to Dawkins' accusation of YHWH being... well -I cannot find his quote here but sure that most here will know it-, and seemed to come of course accompanied of the usual persecution complex and complaints about the new atheism. Anyway, I guess that if those two things are incompatible, right?. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shall we say that 'the deity' (however defined) developing (relevant possessive pronoun) views over time as a result of seeing how 'the thought experiment(s) of the universe(s)/various species therein' develop is an interesting thought experiment (but at too much of a tangent to the topic of this article). Anna Livia (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)