Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

In the law we really don't talk about proof either. Evidence is pretty much the same as under the scientific method as well. The difference between law and science is in the assessing process and in finality. In law, we weigh evidence for and against using some standard (preponderance, reasonable doubt, clear and convincing) once, and place very high barriers on re-weighing the evidence after a decision is reached. Only when speaking colloquially do we say that any court decision proves anything.This is not to say that courts use the scientific method, but only that in law, proof and evidence mean the same thing that they mean in science. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm a patent attorney. Some people don't consider patent attorneys to be real lawyers.

I reconcile it the same way I accept that God could allow children to be mauled by bears for mocking a prophet's beard . Just as being made in God's image does not make us incapable of sin, neither does it make us able to predict every process God uses simply by asking what we mortals might have done.

Some of their work is so tested, but perhaps not all.Einstein's theory of general relativity was eventually tested, but his work involved little more than thought experiments and math for most of a decade. Was Einstein doing science then? I'd say yes. But he was really in the early stages, i.e. formulating a hypothesis and working out the falsifiable predictions of his hypothesis.Eventually Einstein did make some quantitative, testable predictions regarding the bending of light in a Newtonian gravitational field, but his initial predictions were off by a factor of two. Fortunately Einstein was able to revise his theory and predictions before Eddington was able to verify them experimentally.

Hi Bluejay,Looks like you are blaming Shadow for something I posted. I did minor in physics as an undergraduate and I studied general relativity on my own after graduation. Your impression does not match the history I've read regarding Einstein's work. My recollection is that Einstein's thought experiments regarding the equivalence principle led to the prediction that light would bend in a gravitational field in a way not predicted using Newtonian gravity.My understanding matches the story given in wikipediaGeneral relativity - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Soon after publishing the special theory of relativity in 1905, Einstein started thinking about how to incorporate gravity into his new relativistic framework. In 1907, beginning with a simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity.

---

Einstein was aware of the observed advancing of the perihelion for Mercury not matching Newtonian predictions, but the descrepancy with Kepler's laws was extremely tiny and was possibly explainable using other means, including using other gravitational theories, a proposed planet Vulcan that nobody seemed able to find, and an oblate shape for the sun. Einstein was certainly hopeful that he could quantitatively predict Mercury's orbit, but I don't believe that failing to do so would have torpedoed his work. In any event, Einstein was not able to calculate a precession prediction until about 1915.On the other hand, Einstein's quantitative prediction of the bending of light, something that arose qualitatively from his thought experiments was essential. If that did not turn out right, Einstein's theory would have been falsified. Yet, light bending in a gravitational field had never been observed.

'
In the case of special relativity, I don't think it is easy to find a good science/not science question to ask. I've heard varying stories about what drove Einstein and I don't recall which have been debunked.I think that the constant speed of light was a postulate used to derive SR rather than a prediction of the theory. That suggests that it was not quite as you propose. I know that Einstein felt that some the explanations for some electromagnetic phenomenon were inelegant because they required electrical explanations in some inertial reference frames and magnetic explanations in others. SR eliminated this inelegance.What is clear is that Einstein did make predictions based on his theory and that that both SR and GR have been verified by observation and experiments that could have falsified his theories. Einstein simply had a long formulating hypothesis period. Clearly he was using the scientific method.Consider also that Einstein's Nobel prize was not for either SR or GR. Einstein was an astounding theorist and a scientist of the highest order.Behe, not so much at least with respect to ID. Where are the falsifying predictions? What does ID predict that is distinct from what other theories suggest? If like GR in 1907, we simply haven't made that kind of progress yet, then why is ID ready to teach to high school students.Of course that's even ignoring the elephant in the room, namely the first amendment issues.