Now and then I am assailed by people who insist that “intelligent design is not falsifiable.”
Well, put that way, it isn’t, right?
Politics, economics, and religion are not falsifiable either. Anything can escape falsification if it is put in broad enough terms. That’s because we all have overlapping – but not identical – definitions of what these abstractions mean.
However, specific ID hypotheses such as Mike Behe’s irreducible complexity, Bill Dembski’s specified complexity, and Guillermo Gonzalez’s privileged planet hypothesis can all be falsified by showing that the condition that cannot exist according to the theorist’s postulates does in fact exist.
So a specific hypothesis is – of course – falsifiable. That’s a key part of what a hypothesis is: A statement so specific that its contrary would falsify it.
But now here is something I would really like to know: Do people who claim to have falsified various intelligent design hypotheses ever get angry with the people who claim that intelligent design hypotheses are not falsifiable? Read More ›