Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Gary Turner took issue with my assertion that the idea that "the-------------------------------------------------------------------------
natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent
cause is the best way to explain it" is not a refutable opinion
saying
I don't follow. Refute -to deny the truth or accuracy of (Merriam Webster).
A refutable opinion is therefore one that has equally viable alternatives.
"the natural world is so lacking in intelligence that no intelligent being
could possibly have been involved" has roughly equal logical support (that
being approximately zero). The concept is refutable.
Since you evidently took the time to look it up in Merriam Webster, I
wonder why you skipped the first definition
1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
in favor of the second. Indeed, I would have thought it pretty clear
that I was using the word "refutable" in this, its most common sense.
It is easy "to deny the truth or accuracy of" intelligent design, but
it is not possible "to prove it wrong by argument or evidence" or to
"show it to be false or erroneous." Accordingly, it is not a
scientific theory.