On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> The hypothetico-deductive method gets a lot of its power from
> abduction--though (as I am sure you will point out) the hypotheses need to
> make testable predictions before they can be accepted (I'm told that part of
> Meyer's book is devoted to just this).
>
>
I believe you are referring to the appendix where Meyer makes some specific
predictions, which since this is the first time I'm aware of should be
commended. But everything is in the future and ID has not gone to much
effort of actually testing their predictions. Wells is looking at centrioles
in the lab and his hypothesis may be confirmed IN THE FUTURE. Even here
Meyer admits "The outcome of his work won't directly confirm or disconfirm
intelligent design..." Again, making predictions is not testing. The paper
that came out in IEEE Transactions didn't go to the effort of actually
writing the search algorithms. ID proponents keep screaming for Dawkins to
produce his weasel program. To show how "difficult" this is to produce see
here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evercat/weasel.c Note that there is
no locking in this program. We're decades into ID but we've yet to get any
real research program. It's like reading Jean Dixon every New Year's Day.
Rich Blinne
Member ASA
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 14 15:45:28 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 14 2009 - 15:45:28 EDT