The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
String Theory by Marlene Healey Prediction plays a crucial role in the continuing debate of whether string theory and intelligent design are linked by a common lack of falsifiability. Here's how this argument goes:
1) ID does not make predictions that are testable, and therefore not falsifiable, failing Popper's main criteria for categorization of a theory as scientific.
2) String Theory has not produced a prediction that is testable because it requires that there exist objects that are simply not observable - e.g extra dimensions. Therefore it is also not a scientific theory, making it analagous to ID (in a falsifiability sense).
It follow then that if you dismiss ID, you have to dismiss string theory. (See, e.g. W. Dembski's Uncommon Dissent blog)
But do you? An interesting argument against this conclusion is provided by Amanda Gefter's editorial in the Philly Inquirer titled A Scientific Leap Without the Faith. Gefter points out the distinct difference between string theory and ID as one of explanatory power combined with the internal elegance of the mathematics. In fact, it is the presence of mathematics that provides the oomph that catapults string theory over ID:
Return to Article
