You are obviously thinking of the wrong sort of science - historical science is not the sort of thing you can do repeatable tests on.
But you can make predictions and you can repeatedly verify them. As has been demonstrated by evolutionary theory and as is notably lacking from ID.
The scientific method is about testing hypotheses. The precise methods of doing this will depend on the nature of the investigation and the evidence available.
However predicted results are key to this as they ensure a level of objectivity that interpretation alone just cannot match.
Evolution is a philosophical material worldview into which man attempts to fit the facts. So evolution is the faith based ideology.
You again fail to appreciate or explain why it is that the methods of science as applied to evolution (when combined with a knowledge of geology) result in ongoing discovery?
Meanwhile ID remains a philosophy of ignorance that has a long and undistinguished history of discovering nothing whatsoever.
Why is that?
Again you miss the point. Tested conclusions. Predicted results.
Again, you’re dreaming, that might be the ideal but that’s not actually how it works.
Then how do scientists keep discovering new fossils, new transitional forms and new evidence entirely consistent with that predicted by the theory of evolution?
Why do IDists continue to discover nothing new?
What is the worth in a form of investigation that purports to call itself scientific but which results in no discoveries or new evidence?
Except when the ideology clouds the results.
If evolutionary theory is the ideology why is it that the methods of science in the form of predicted results and discovery continue to reveal new evidence?
If ID is true why is it that no predictions are ever made and no discoveries have ever resulted?
It is a question of faith based ideological desire to find a role for God/gods Vs the results of the scientific method.
Much has been written on the Cambrian explosion and its inconsistency with the Darwin’s theory.
Could you be more specific?
To use the Cambrian explosion as some sort of evidence against evolutionary theory you must first accept geological dating methods. Do you accept these methods or not?
Secondly the Cambrian explosion hardly gives rise to "the major animal groups" as we know them now. Mammals, reptiles, amphibeans, insects etc. etc. etc. all came later.
If ID is true and all animal forms exploded onto the scene simultaneaously the very obvious prediction would be that mammals, fish, reptiles, trilobytes, humans etc. etc. would be found throughout geological time? This is patently not the case.
Something is true and all the rest are false. Whatever happened happened and any other story is false because it just did not happen.
What they are actually saying is that there are facts and there are interpretations of facts - ”facts’ don’t speak for themselves.
Yes. But predicted facts, facts discovered as a result of theory, speak with a lot more objectivity and authority regarding the veracity of the theory in question (i.e. evolutionary theory). Equally the complete inability of ID to predict or discover tells us everything we need to know about the reliability of that theory.
Evolution is a faith-based interpretation of the evidence and it is a delusion. You believe therefore you find. Lets have some evidence that the sort of change you imagine has happened is actually capable of happening at all. How do we know that mutation and natural selection is capable of producing biological complexity? You can’t just assume, we need some proven positive beneficial genetic change producing morphological change - we can’t just assume it’s happened based on our philosophical premises.
It's called tested evidence.
Evolution has fossil evidence of change with geological time that is completely in line with genetic predictions of relationships between species. Predictions that have led and will continue to lead to new discoveries and new evidence (both genetic and fossil).
Predictions and tested results. The basis of any valid scientific theory.
ID makes no predictions, tests no theories and makes no discoveries. That surely is as weak a position as it is possible for a supposedly scientific theory to have. Would you not agree?
If there is any truth to ID whatsoever IDists have done a piss poor job of demonsterating it. This at least you must admit.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.