Absence of Proof != Proof of Absence
My mom keeps saying "absence of proof is not proof of absence" as a valid, logical argument for the existence of God. Here's my little logical unproof.
Given: absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Rather, all possibilities have an equal probability.
Thus, the two competing theories (in this situation), intelligent design (actually, the hybrid, more on that later) and evolution are equally probable.
Thus, absence of proof isn't proof of existence either.
The hybrid theory that I was talking about, powered evolution, holds that evolution happened because a higher power caused it. It's surprisingly popular, and totally unverifiable. After all, that's the same logic that says dinosaur bones are really tricks to test our faith.
Well, a hundred more words to pump up my blog :)
posted by Eric @ 9:12 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
What I don't understand is why you are so certain that evolution is better than intelligent design. They both say exactly the same thing, except that evolution says it all was set forth due to random chance. How is that any more verifyable?
It isn't more provable, but it is more testable. I can hypothetically prove evolution is false by finding absolute proof that even a single animal just "poofed" onto Earth. I.D. can never be proven false. If you're talking about the hybrid theory, I find evolution to be more attractive because of Occam's Razor: do not create more things than need to exist. As you said, powered evolution and Darwinian evolution are similar in that they both have the same tenets of change: life changes, DNA mutates, etc. However, powered evolution requires God, who is hypothetical. Unpowered evolution requires only science, which is as far from hypothetical as you can get.
rkjswbdn
See my blog. My comment got waay too long to view in that god awful frame
gsbroet
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home