(May 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: Straw: meet grasp.
For any scientific claim to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable.
What is the failure criteria here? What would indicate that some life form was not intelligently designed, and how do you know this? If you have no failure criteria, you are simply making an unecessary assumption.
If the claim is nothing more than a resemblance, then it's of absolutely no significance. I don't know who is supposed to be convinced, or of what. I imagine it's the self being convinced that such beliefs are rational by an equivocation of language.
How is evolution a falsifiable explanation for life's systems?