possible falsifiability for intelligent design?

The essential problem of ID is its premise. It is not in the nature of science to admit "irreducible complexity". All that means is we don't understand it yet. The normal course of a scientific theory is a working model that encounters exceptions and difficulties, becoming more and more complex in response, until it collapses with the breakthrough of a newer, simpler explanation.

ID does the opposite, calling a halt whenever anything looks complicated, ascribing it to the action of God before any mundane explanation can be developed. The hazard for ID is that any subsequent explanation puts God in retreat, defending an ever shrinking territory. Is that the position we want to put God in?

The alternative is to put God in charge of the "why" of creation, leaving the "how" to the observers and experimenters. That way, God is still always in charge of everything. Of course that also leaves scientists free to ignore God when developing their models, which can annoy some believers. But really, don't we already understand that the universe, however it is, works according to consistent and eventually understandable principles, whether we attribute their development to God or not?

The more automatic and unperturbed the operation of our universe, the grander God's underlying design. Intervention implies the work of a bungling tinkerer, not a master architect. If the universe is seamlessly perfect, the craftmarks of God may simply be indescernible to the non-believer. Does that make God non-existent? Or does it make his handiwork all the more incomprehensibly amazing? Determining this is a matter of faith.

Truth in advertising: I do believe God created the universe.

That having been said: the problem with irreducible complexity is that it's an argument from ignorance. You're basically saying "this is such a complicated thing that I don't see any way at all it could have evolved naturally, so therefore it didn't." The problem is obvious - even if you find a mechanism for one item to've evolved naturally, you have a ready-made answer for the next complex thing you find. Consequently, I think irreducible complexity can be falsified only on a case-by-case basis, never as a whole. I don't see that as a problem, as all you have to do is falsify a few of them - after that, it's not unreasonable to assume that eventually they'll all be falsified. However, it does mean that we will probably always have claims of irreducible complexity. The price of free speech, I guess.

Good and well-put question. But Zero Cool has come in with the answer. Dawkins demolishes Behe in TGD, and by extension the weakness of the irreducible complexity arguments as a whole. Evolutionary pathways usually reveal themselves eventually, especially since we can map DNA to such a fine degree now.

What gets me about this idea of "irreducible complexity" is that the man who dreamt it up Michael Behe isn't even a biologist and he has never once submitted his ideas to a scientific journal or sought to defend them in an open debate with professional biologists. Surely if he had confidence that he had discovered some ground breaking new evidence he would be more than happy to discuss it with the scientific community yet his unwillingness to do so speaks volumes.

there is no thinking approximately it, id is only an attempt via the non secular community to get their creation tale into the standard public colleges, as technology. to illustrate, they declare that nature is only too complicated to have only developed, that a writer ought to have designed each little thing. What disturbs me approximately this theory is they provide no theory or evidence that "a" writer become to blame, they only proclaim it. What i'm getting at is, why purely a writer and not many, many diverse creators all designing diverse factors of the universe at diverse cases? The christians might do extra useful with id via getting removed from a unmarried writer and suggesting that extra effective than one get in touch. although, even that would not make id technology. What makes id no longer a valid medical theory is, it could provide no mechanism for explaining the character of this writer(s); nor, does it furnish a mechanism for how sensible layout become carried out. As such, there is no longer something that is examined via technology.

Irreducible complexity may be falsifiable; however, the falsity of irreducible complexity does not falsify intelligent design. That is, irreducible complexity may indicate the truth of intelligent design, the proof that there may be evolution and that things are not irreducibly complex does not do away with the intelligent designer. the designer may have designed the process of of biological evolution.

in order to be falsifiable, an idea has to be validated first...and ID isnt even a debatable subject to actual scientists. creationism, or ID as it is now cloaked, has been thoroughly and exhaustingly debunked as non science and as such, cannot be elevated to the level of discussion or debate as this would give it credibility it surely does not rate.

We DO understand the flagellum. It's in The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It's also been covered online if you don't want to purchase the book.

You know, I questioned your credibility in using "falsifiability." I looked it up. Bravo. I have never seen it used before.

the tail is now explainable.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/06040...