Uncommon Dissent

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Interesting Refutation of George Will and Charles Krauthammer on ID (4 comments)

George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: "The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis." This is true; but he should have added that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not falsifiable either. Darwin's claim to fame was his discovery of a mechanism of evolution; he accepted "survival of the fittest" as a good summary of his natural-selection theory. But which ones are the fittest? The ones that survive. There is no criterion of fitness that is independent of survival. Whatever happens, it is the "fittest" that survive — by definition. This, just like intelligent design, is not a testable hypothesis.

Someone needs to do a little reading.

(But then, you already knew that.)



Filed under: Back to School

4 Comments:

  • What an interesting and spirited defence of the science of Intelligent Design.

    George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: "The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable."

    ...both intelligent design and natural selection fall by this standard.


    Bullet dodged!

    -The Rev. Schmitt.

    By Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD., at 5:54 PM  

  • One coule simply read the shorter:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html
    and:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

    I don't want to make the poor boy have to so darn much, simply to write an ill-informed opinion piece about a topic he knows jack shit about.

    But what i really want to know is if he wrote this:

    because the argument put forward:
    "The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun’s “pull” reaches us, the Earth will have “moved on” for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun’s pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth’s pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces “would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years.” Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous."

    Is nothing short of retarded. And i mean "short of retarded" in the sense of including the concept of retarded time in your theory, 'cause if you do it turns out that it works out so that the earth would fall exactly as it does.

    I remember when i first learned about this. In my undergraduate E+M course. But somehow i doubt that the author of this article has taken one of those. I have got to find out if this is really by Tommy boy.

    By Anonymous kyle, at 11:29 PM  

  • Looks like Bethell's been on an anti Einstein kick for a while. And someone beat me to pointing out how little he knows about the subject:
    http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Comments/occasional/bethell.html
    http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/print.html


    of course i can't tell if Bethell's still on this kick in his new book without getting my hands on a copy.

    By Anonymous kyle, at 11:53 PM  

  • kyle, that's what libraries are for. God forbid (as He so enjoys to do) that you should waste your hard-earned shillings on it.

    By Blogger T.H. Huxley, at 7:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home