Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

I agree this is the crux. If ID is science, then the standards to which it should be held are the same as any other field of science. The key facets of legitimate science are:

• Natural.
• Supported by evidence.
• Falsifiable.
• Replicable.

ID fails on all counts, and here's why:

• Natural.
  ​
  This is the problem of ultimate origins. ID dvances the premise that it is impossible for life to arise naturally, that it must have been created by an intelligence. In order to avoid association with religion, they further posit that that intelligence was natural. Therefore, if life on earth arose through intelligent intervention, then how did that earlier life arise? The answer must be that it, too, arose through intelligent intervention, so you ask how did that yet earlier life arise. This must be given the same answer, and so you advance backward in time to the beginning of time and the first intelligence, which could only have arisen supernaturally.
  ​
  Therefore, ID isn't natural.
  ​
• Supported by evidence.
  ​
  IDists say, "The evidence for ID is all around us." This is silly and not evidence at all, and evolutionists could equally reply, "The evidence for evolution is all around us," thereby matching in one fell swoop all the evidence currently available for ID, and they can add to this all the research data of the past couple hundred years, swamping ID in a sea of evidence.
  ​
• Falsifiable.
  ​
  Since ID offers no evidence, there's nothing to be falsified.
  ​
• Replicable.
  ​
  Again, since ID offers no experiments confirming it's legitimacy, there are no experiments to replicate.

ID's qualifications as science are less than pathetic. And I can't agree that Creationist ideas like ID should be given some special consideration, as if they had a dispensation from a papal authority to please grant them scientific status, just as a courtesy.Only when ID begins to try to satisfy the requirements of science will it begin to be taken seriously.--Percy

Nosy has a legitimate topic concern. Even though my post attempted to address the question of whether standards are being applied equally and fairly, it's also a strong attack on ID. It also introduces the extraneous issue of what should legitimately be the standards of science.Keeping this thread too narrowly on-topic would kill it, which makes Nosy's quick closure look particularly astute. The reasoning is that if you took my Message 7 as a definition of the standards, then to keep this thread on-topic you could only talk about whether the standards are being applied equally to both IDist and non-IDist alike. Obviously, they are, so this becomes a non-debate.So the more important question becomes, "What standards should be applied in order to be fair to both Creationists and evolutionists." And we'll leave ID, macroevolution and all the rest of the specific topic areas out of the discussion, execept perhaps as useful examples when appropriate.To clearly define the topic again: What standards should be applied?--Percy

Creationists insist it is science, and therefore appropriate for inclusion in the public school science curiculum.Given this, how can you argue for judging Creationism by any other standard besides science?--Percy

The original point postulated slightly more complex circumstances. It isn't just whether you change your mind. It's whether your mind is influenced by new evidence and/or fresh insights. Since religious views are presumably eternal and unchanging, if they're wrong then they were always wrong and always will be.--Percy

Seeking the spirtual truths of life, which is the realm of religion, is not the same thing as understanding the physical, natural world, which is the realm of science.A non-scientific status would be contrary to Creationism's goal of representation in public school science classrooms.--Percy

It's an intiguing claim you make about the work of Christian scientists, but it's off-topic and not the key point anyway. The important (and on-topic) question is what standards do these Christian scientists apply? Scientific standards, might one presume? If not, then they might be Christian, but they're not scientists, and what they're doing isn't science.--Percy

I don't think it's fair to be so coy. I, too, doubt your claim in Message 44 that "Deuteronomy informs us that the stars are simply holes in a vast, solid firmament, through which the sun shines." You should explain that you were only, just as Maestro had done, raising a hypothetical. Just as Maestro's hypothetical included a claim science does not make ("There is no God."), your hypothetical included a claim the Bible doesn't specifically make.--Percy

impetent - I like it! impetent (ĭm'pĭ-tent) adj.   a combination of incompetent and impotent.Congratulations on your contribution to the English language! --Percy

Let's contrast the two. It's apparent, not just to me but to everyone, including you, that lower layers must have been deposited before higher layers (geologic actions can rotate layers, including complete inversions, but these are later events not related to the original formation of the layers). I don't want to appear patronizing, so I won't explain the logic behind the Law of Superposition, which is the formal name for this principle, but if it truly isn't apparent to you then we can discuss it.How is design apparent in biological structures? I ask this not to change the topic, but more to highlight that the way you know biological structures are designed is not based upon evidence. I think you're confusing two different kinds of truth. There's the truth of science, for example, the truth of how objects are affected by gravity, or the truth of how the boiling temperature of water is affected by atmospheric pressure. But these are not spirtual truths, and most scientists don't refer to such findings as truths at all. Genuine truths are timeless and unchanging, while science is tentative and not tied forever to any interpretation or perspective. Science doesn't uncover truths, it develops theories that strive to make sense of our universe.You're talking about a different kind of truth, a truth that speaks of man's relation to the universe and with God. You say you think the approach of science will miss truths, but it isn't looking for these kinds of truths, so of course it will miss them. To return to the gravity example, when measuring the changing velocity of an object in a gravitational field, God isn't really a factor. Or to take a more mundane example, the next time you're trying to figure out what's wrong with your car, let me know how you're including the search for truth and your relationship with God.Staying within the confines of the realm of science, if you still think the scientific method is missing something scientific, I think it would help if you could provide an example of the kind of things you think it is missing.--Percy