Steve Reuland over on Panda’s Thumb is babbling about whether some ID strawman du jour can be falsified. Let’s examine the real issue.
First of all, we’ll use this definition of evolution given to the Kansas Board of Education in a letter from 38 (count ’em) Nobel laureates better known as the Weisel 38.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.Ã¢â‚¬Â
an unguided, unplanned process
As all of us who don’t cling to strawman versions of ID know, the only bone we have to pick with that definition is the unguided, unplanned part. We are of the position that evolution, in part or in whole, was a guided or planned process.
So how does one go about falsifying unguided evolution? By demonstrating that the process was guided, of course.
ID is the means by which this theory of unguided evolution can be falsified. If ID cannot be falsified and is itself just religion disguised as science, where does that leave unguided evolution? Why it leaves unguided evolution as unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
Sorry Steve Reuland, but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it to. Either ID is science or unguided evolution is pseudo-science. Takes yo pick and let me know when you have a final answer.