LOL
commike37 writes:
There's two main problems I see here with the current argumentation here.
...
2. Redirecting this topic to an ID-bashing session.
But you were the one who introduce ID into the argument:
commike37 msg #7 writes:
Not all agree that evolution is the best theory. Some people would subscribe to intelligent design as the best theory.
Before that there was no mention of it. You also raise it again in msg #18. An honest reading of your messages would cause one to ask do you want to discuss ID or not? Now, if you do, there are a couple of threads already going that you could respond to -- such as
Is ID properly pursued?,
Who designed the ID designer(s)?,
ID as Religion and
ID and contradictions to other faiths -- and one of them should be suitable, thus taking the load off this thread.
Now, your comment in msg #18:
Intelligent design as a scientific theory is in a primitive stage (the concept has been around a lot, but the science is rather new). However, if we reject ID on the grounds that it is more primitive and does not have as much science behind it as evolution, can it even be possible for evolution to be challenged? Wouldn't all new theories have to be rejected on this ground?
Still shows a failure to understand the scientific process. As I noted in an earlier post (
msg #12, click here for the post), and which it doesn't look like you have read.
The question of how a new theory moves from concept into the mainstream of science is discussed in that Wikipedia article that I suggested you read. Let me quote from it again:
Scientific Theory Characteristics (from Wikipedia entry on "Theory"):
In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e. it
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.
This is true of such established theories as evolution, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, etc.
And as I said in my earlier post, evolution fits this criteria, and ID and creationism don't. Specifically in regard to your comment about ID being "a scientific theory ... in a primitive stage" let us evaluate it by the above criteria, not to show that
ID is wrong but that the concept that it is
science is wrong:
(1) consistent with pre-existing theory: ID does not explain anything that evolution doesn't explain, nor has it shown any errors in the evolution theory. In fact ID does a worse job of explaining than evolution. (we can go into that on the ID threads if you wish -- pick one).
(2) supported by many strands of evidence: ID is currently not supported by a single piece of evidence, while evolution has
mountains, but just a single observed instance is sufficient ... how about the
observed evolution of an IC system? This also falsifies the IC concept btw.
(3) survived crtitical real world tests: nope. None so far for any ID concept. It is questionable if some of them are even testable, but that is another issue related to the pseudo science of ID that can be addressed on those other threads.
(4) makes predictions: not one yet that I am aware of from the ID crowd.
(5) is the best explanation: not by a long shot as already noted. So far it isn't even a credible explanation.
This is not ID bashing (you can substitute "creationism" if you like in the above discussion), it is {lack-of-science} bashing, and ID is just the example used. The mechanism is there for any new theory to come along, that
is the scientific process, but it has to measure up. Punctuated Equilibrium ("PunkEek") did this, as an example of a new theory in evolution that has moved into the mainstread.
Now if you think evolution is such a poor preformer, then put up a scientific theory that qualifies on the above basis and does a better job. We are interested.
It is not a matter of faith in evolution as it is faith in the process of science to develop the best answer with the most consistent results.
Note that this "best explanation" bit is the final criteria, note the biggest. Thus you have two theories about the universe, the inflation theory and the brane theory. As yet the jury is out on the evidence, but the current accepted model is the inflation one because of #5.
Enjoy.
{edited typos}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-13-2005 21:59 AM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2