RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 20, 2021 at 5:38 pm
(This post was last modified: March 20, 2021 at 6:23 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(March 20, 2021 at 4:41 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, propose an observation. I'm certainly willing to listen.
What sort of observation would lead to the conclusion of design?
That is the basic question that has to be answered. Without that, no design claim can even get off the ground.
Firstly, if your inability to propose an observation isn't valid, why would my inability make a difference? Some propositions in science have taken years, if not decades, to observe. According to Wikipedia, gravitational waves were first proposed in 1893, more formally in 1905, and yet weren't possible to observe until 2016―that's a hundred year difference.
Secondly: Science is not a Courtroom. Your question places you squarely into the problem of induction and underdetermination. That is why I keep emphasizing falsification as the only logical approach. And I have already given the forum one approach to falsification using the following argument: A universe in which everything is designed, implies a universe in which everything can be designed; therefore, if anything in this universe cannot be designed, the universe is not designed. (I gave some descriptions of design here.)
Theories don't have to get off the ground, as you say, they have to be shot down. That is what is meant by conjecture and refutation.
