Usual rumble from the usual dullards: Philosophy prof asks, Is intelligent design bad theory or non theory?
Uriah Kriegel, a philosophy prof at the University of Arizona, asks "Is intelligent design a bad scientific theory or a non-scientific theory?", conveniently ruling out the possibility that it might be a theory with something to offer. (That will at least save his job.) He decides that it is
not a scientific theory, and his reasoning is fun:
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
Hmmm. For a moment there, I was sure that the prof was describing Darwinism, because that is a pretty exact description of Darwinism. There is no experimental procedure by which Darwinism can be falsified because it is assumed to be true on principle, and is therefore not subject to falsification.
Indeed, if you try to falsify it in a publicly funded American school system, you will likely be sued.
ID can be falsified simply by showing that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex organ in nature.
If you like this blog, check out my award-winning book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.