Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The ID Fallacy
nwr
Member
Posts: 6412
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 7 of 12 (240132)
09-02-2005 10:57 PM


If ID were a science
it would be developing and testing a reliable way of determining the degree of specified complexity in an object. I should be able to take anything I like, whether it be a snowflake, a geode, a rock, a mouse, and apply a standardised procedure. That procedure should give me the degree of specificed complexity (or whatever it is that the ID proponents call their imagined property).
Science goes after data. A scientific concept is one you should be able to measure. Why aren't the ID people coming up with the needed measuring procedure?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024