Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So are you saying it cannot be falsified?
( and if you say "no"...then tell me...specifically...what would falsify )
I certainly don't think it's likely
for evolution be falsified. But what would do the job anyway? Let me stretch for an analogy here...
Suppose I believe that I've developed an unbreakable window. What's a good way to leave that claim open for falsification? Leaving the window out in the open, and letting anyone toss anything at it that they like, should do the trick.
If I really, truly believe that I've done my job well making the window unbreakable, and you ask me, "Well, what would
it take to break the window?", all I do is shrug and say something like "Whatever you manage to make hit one side and come out the other." Since as far as I know I've covered all of my bases, it's hard to imagine what would actually do the trick -- but I've still left myself open for the possibility of falsification by leaving the window out in the open, accessible to any conceivable attack.
A theory that isn't falsifiable is like claiming my window is unbreakable, but then locking my window in a concrete bunker and surrounding it 24/7 by heavily armed guards. You can't break the window this way, but the window itself isn't getting tested, just the defensive perimeter surrounding it, conveniently deflecting all challenges.
I'll give an example of trying to falsify ID, and how I've heard some ID/creationist defenders use "logic" which essentially creates a guarded concrete bunker instead of an exposed pane of glass open to real testing...
I think it's fair to say that if something is Intelligently Designed that its design should be... drum roll, please... intelligent! The less intelligent the design of living creatures seems, the less likely ID comes off as a good explanation. But who's judgement of what's intelligent and what's not am I allowed to apply?
I say that the human eye is a great example of BAD design. It's not very smart at all. (You can google more about this if you like, starting with the problems of having the blood vessels and nerve fibers of the retina running in front of the retina, in the way of the path of light, instead of along the back of the retina -- a better "design" which can be found in the eye of, for example, the octopus.)
A typical challenge to my view of the eye goes like this: "You think it's bad? Well, smart guy! Show me you can make a better one!" My inability, however, to manufacture eyeballs has nothing to do with whether or not I can spot bad design, just like my inability to play piano has nothing to do with my ability to hear and recognize an obviously sour note.
Another counterpoint goes like this: "Maybe you're simply not smart enough to see the advantages that this seemingly
bad design has."
It could be true. Maybe I'm not smart enough. But if I'm not smart enough to judge a design bad, what makes you sure you're smart enough to judge that a design is good?
This is a perfect set-up to try to turn any challenge to the ID proposition into a limitation of the attacker before it can do any damage to the proposition itself. Think this creature is intelligently designed? Great! So do we! Think it isn't? Well, that's your problem for failing to see how intelligent the design really is!