Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Philosophy and God » Science doesn't deal in the currency of absolutes.

Science doesn't deal in the currency of absolutes.

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]



like all claims in science, one never gets 100% proof. You never absolutely rule out with 100% certainty the possibility of an indirect evolutionary route. But science doesn't deal in the currency of absolutes.

If the indirect evolutionary pathway is so unlikely or impractical that it would never occur in nature, then evolutionists have only escaped refutation by irreducible complexity by promoting a widely speculative and untestable hypothesis. In essence, they have put Darwinian evolution in an unfalsifiable position.

Behe's view doesn't require absolute falsification. His view is that a direct Darwinian pathway is effectively falsified by the presence of irreducible complexity, not absolutely falsified. Perhaps indirect routes are possible (in the same way that anything is possible), but possible does not mean plausible, or likely.

This has been Behe's point all along: the inability to achieve 100% refutation of a wildly speculative indirect evolutionary scenario does not mean that irreducible complexity is invalid. To argue such is to hold irreducible complexity to an unreasonably high standard. To the contrary, the fact that evolutionists are forced to respond to Behe with such tenuous and speculative stories of indirect evolution shows the strength of the argument for irreducible complexity.

That that critics refuse to accept falsification it also means that critics are placing Darwinian evolution in an effectively unfalsifiable position, where no level of complexity can falsify it.

(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. ... But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.

But that's the problem with the claim that multiple parts can come together from different systems to spontaneously form complex multipart systems: such explanations aren't scientifically plausible. They do not defeat counter-arguments to Darwinian evolution like irreducible complexity.

"mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility."

Como em todas as reivindicações da ciência, nunca alguém consegue provar algo com 100% de certeza. Nunca consegue-se descartar com 100% de certeza a possibilidade de uma rota evolutiva indireta. Mas a ciência não lida com a moeda de absolutos. Se o caminho evolutivo indireto é tão improvável ou impossível que isso nunca iria ocorrer na natureza, então os naturalistas só escapam a refutação da evolução pela complexidade irredutível, promovendo uma hipótese amplamente especulativa e não testável. Em essência, eles colocaram a evolução darwiniana em uma posição infalsificável. A visão de Behe ​​não requer falsificação absoluta. Seu ponto de vista é que uma via darwinista direta é efetivamente falsificada pela presença da complexidade irredutível. Talvez rotas indiretas são possíveis (da mesma forma que qualquer coisa é possível), mas possível não significa plausível, ou provável.
Este tem sido ponto de Behe ​​o tempo todo: a incapacidade de atingir 100% de refutação de um cenário evolutivo indireto totalmente baseado em especulação não significa que a complexidade irredutível é inválida. Para argumentar deste modo significa de colocar a exigência de prova da complexidade irredutível a um nível excessivamente elevado. Ao contrário, o fato de que os naturalistas são forçados a responder a Behe ​​com tais histórias tênues e especulativas da evolução indireta mostra a força do argumento da complexidade irredutível. Que  os críticos se recusam a aceitar a falsificação isso também significa que os críticos estão colocando a evolução darwiniana em uma posição efetivamente infalsificável, onde nenhum nível de complexidade pode falsificá-la.

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum