Often when we ask the evolutionist what might falsifiy the notion that humans evolved sometime in recent epochs from previous non-human animal species they tell us that discovery of human and dinosaur fossils in the same strata would falsify it.
The scientific method behind that goes something like this:
Observation: Human and human-like fossils are seen only in recent strata.
Hypothesis: Humans evolved from animals in a recent epoch.
Prediction: No human and dinosaur fossil will ever be found together in strata that can be reliably dated to an older epoch.
Test: Dig dig dig, date date date
Okay. I’ll buy that. Oynate man was a hoax but it’s illustrative. Now let’s look at the clockmaker argument.
Observation: Clocks are only observed after clockmakers appeared.
Hypothesis: Clocks only come from clockmakers.
Prediction: No clock will ever be found where the origin can be traced to anything other than a clockmaker.
Test: Examine as many clocks as possible and determine their origin.
Is there any difference in methodology here? Are both not instances of the scientific method? I believe they are equivalent. If the former is “scientific” so is the latter.
Onward to the modern clockmaker hypothesis – intelligent design.
Observation: Irreducibly complex machinery, where the origin can be determined, is only the result of intelligent agency.
Hypothesis: The irreducibly complex (IC) machinery in every living cell is the result of intelligent design.
Prediction: No amount of experimentation will ever demonstrate a method of origination for the IC machinery in the living cell that is independent of intelligent agency.
Test: Experiment, experiment, experiment
I assert that this is just as scientific as any of the prior examples given.
What’s good for the Darwinian evolutionist is good for the design theorist. Evolutionists, you can’t have your cake and eat too! Sorry! 🙂