The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

J.P.: The thing is, as far as the science is concerned, there really is no debate. Krauthammer is dead right: ID is not a scientific theory, period. It makes no positive assertions that are falsifiable. That is, its falsifiable assertions are entirely negative, variations all on "natural selection doesn't explain X." Its positive assertions (an Intelligent Designer did it) are not falsifiable. As far as the metaphysics goes, there's a lot to mull over, as Krauthammer acknowledges ("Intelligent design may be interesting as theology"). But science isn't metaphysics, and it's a mistake to rely on Edward O. Wilson's theological conclusions. I've mentioned here before that lots of scientists are flakey, even nuts, when it comes to serious thinking about religion. It's no more profitable to ask them about the nature of God then to ask a priest or philosopher to lead a paleontological dig.

And Dave, you're throwing around terms you don't seem to understand: "The real kicker here is that Krauthammer doesn't hold evolution to the same standard as ID. As a scientific theory, evolution should not only be disprovable, but also repeatable, with a more complete fossil record between these jumps in species."

A scientific theory must be falsifiable. A scientific experiment must be repeatable.

topics:
Religion