Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Seriously, your English appears to be to just great. If you hadn't said it wasn't your first language I'd have thought it was automatically based on the above

There can be some falsifications but it depends on the context they're using it in.

For example, as noted, if someone was to say "you/we can't know god's plan", that is a contradiction. It's presuming that you know you can't know something, which doesn't make any sense.

Other than that you could argue Occam's Razor. For example with ID proponents who posit that evolution exists but there is a guided creator. There's no evidence of course to suggest this is true, but neither is there to the contrary. However our understanding of evolution and abiogenesis doesn't need a creator to result in what we have today. IDers tend to insert god at the beginning of the equation (creation) or during it (guiding evolution). But Occam's Razor can take of this because, due to the un-evidenced and thus unknown nature of this creator, the result appears to be the same regardless of whether it was there or not.

Also we need to consider that making an un-falsifiable statement is itself fallacious as it becomes irresolvable. There's no way to test the claim and hence no way to prove its validity. In this instance it comes entirely down to whether you accept something prima facie on faith, or whether you reject it due to its irresolvable nature (which is the standard in the scientific method).

Thanks, I suppose my English ain't that bad.

Actually, your post is soo good, I might use it next time debating theists and creationists! If you don't mind, of course.

P.S.

Of course not There are many on here who are far more knowledgeable than I on this topic so I'd definitely recommend reading through some of the debates where IDers and theists have come through and engaged in conversation.