Creationism/ID as Science

Classical physics is not the same as Newtonian physics. Relativity is a Classical theory and it has subsumed and replaced Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is still used only because it is simpler and a good enough approximation under many conditions.

You'll find sites taking the opposite view, too.http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/...cl/classical_physics.htm University of Birmingham - A leading global university [quote] qsRelativity is a Classical theory and it has subsumed and replaced Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is still used only because it is simpler and a good enough approximation under many conditions.[/qs]These statements are also not entirely correct. Your problem is using absolute statements such as relativity has replaced Newtonian mechanics without further clarification. This is simply not true in the vast majority of cases. [/qs]That further clarification is provided by the second sentence.

And you acknowledge that the term Classical Physics is sometimes used to include Relativity. Thus the two terms are not semantically identical and it is better not to use "Classical" if "Newtonian" is meant.

If IS "is the science of design detection" then ID should be producing lots of testable work on detecting design. It shouldn't even be looking at evolution until is has well-tested and reliable methods of detecting design - and even than that would be expected to be a sideline.But that hasn't happened. Instead we get lots of books that have more to do with attacking evolution than about methods of detecting design. They produce very little work on detecting design - Dembski is about the only one who has really tried. And even Dembski failed to use his own method correctly when he tried to apply it to the evolution of a bacterial flagellum. Nobody outside the ID movement uses his work at all.THe term ID was invented because "Creation Science" had been exposed as religion trying to masquerade as science, so creationists needed a new name to hide behind. It is NOT the "science of design detection" because the ID movement doesn't even care about trying to produce such a science. That claim is just one of the lies that the ID movement puts around in their efforts to convince the public that creationism is science.

quote:

---

No, no one claimed that it is science.

---

The guy I was replying to did. The rest of your post is equallly badly informed.