Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are there any comprehensive scientific studies of ID?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 34 (468384)
05-29-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Perdition
05-28-2008 7:25 PM


Re: ID
Concerning scientific facts, you're touching on something for which there seem to be two primary philosophies. One is that an observation is a fact. The other is than an observation is tentative and that our confidence in an observation only grows as others replicate the observation with the same result.
The objection to the latter view is that it trivializes discussion by forcing us to give up the very convenient word "fact", and most discussions get by pretty well using the word "fact" for anything not contentious.
An aside: I think evolutionists could get by quite well without insisting that the occurrence of macroevolution is a fact.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Perdition, posted 05-28-2008 7:25 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Perdition, posted 05-29-2008 11:09 AM Percy has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 32 of 34 (468421)
05-29-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Percy
05-29-2008 7:40 AM


Re: ID
That's sort of what I was trying to get at, especially as regards "proof." It's been hammered home by many (including me) that science doesn't deal in proof, just in corroboration. But how does that work when you have a theory (like the Earth revolving around the sun) which is impossible to observe via available technology. That theory then makes predictions, which can be tested and either vindicate or falsify that theory. Then, a couple hundred years later, we now have the ability to directly observe the phenomenon. If we take the philosophy that observations are facts, the Earth revolving around the sun just went from a theory to a fact, would we than say that the theory has been "proven?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-29-2008 7:40 AM Percy has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 33 of 34 (468531)
05-29-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Perdition
05-28-2008 7:25 PM


Re: ID
As Percy has alluded to, this is semantics and thus trivial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Perdition, posted 05-28-2008 7:25 PM Perdition has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 34 of 34 (469414)
06-05-2008 1:53 PM


Biggest argument against ID is derived characters, imo.
The fact that we can observe so many characters that are obvious derivations of other characters (the bat's wing is a good example) is evidence against ID. Undoubtedly if design were truly intelligent, whe would not have so many clearly ad hoc solutions - truly designed morphology would be better matched to function than what we observe. The existence of so many "morphological mistakes" (such as the "blind spot" in the mammalian eye is a consequence of this "ad hoc design". And of course ad hoc design is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024