Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

Hi, Shadow.Welcome to EvC! I'm no physicist, but I don't think you've got the right impression of what Einstein did nor of how he did it. Einstein's "thought experiments and math" were a response to an observed deficiency in a well-established theory (Newton's law of universal gravitation).General relativity is a mathematical formula that works better than Newton's formula at explaining various observations about the movement of objects in space.He started with an observation, then developed a superior hypothesis (in the form of "thought experiments and math"), and, after several predictions were confirmed, it reached the theory stage.Evolution by natural selection went the same way: Darwin started with observations (geological record, diversity of life, etc.), then developed a hypothesis that explained the observations better than previous hypotheses did, and, after several predictions (e.g., transitional fossils, emergence of new traits) were confirmed, it reached the theory stage. Underlines mark the reasons why it is considered science.You seem to be suggesting that Intelligent Design is following the same pattern of observation, hypothesis, evidence, theory, but that it is just at the hypothesis stage. Though I dispute the claim that the progression flows in this manner (evidence and at least one court case suggests that the hypothesis predates the observations it is supposedly based on), for the sake of argument I will stipulate that ID is a hypothesis based on a given set of observations.However, the trouble is that mainstream science challenges literally every observation on which the ID hypothesis is based. For example, all claimed observations of irreducible complexity have not been substantiated, so a hypothesis to explain irreducible complexity is not needed. Also, claims about the impossibility of information without intelligence cannot be substantiated, so there is no need to hypothesize an intelligent being for that reason.And, there are others, but this post is long enough already. The take-home message is that the scientific merit of an idea is and should be determined by its expediency (as demonstrated by observation), its superiority to alternative ideas, and its conformity to physical evidence. All ideas that are considered part of science have met these standards, while ID has not. There is no double standard. Edited by Bluejay, : superfluous "to"

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, NoNukes. Sorry for that: a week or two out of the game apparently ruins my reading skills. Most of my commentary was geared toward Shadow too, so you can probably not take any of it personally.----- Okay, I misunderstood you: you mentioned general relativity and "most of a decade" of math and thought experiments, and I assumed you were talking about the period of time between GR and Eddington (which, as I review the dates, is not "most of a decade," anyway); rather than the period between special and general relativity.Now that I understand this, perhaps your question about whether Einstein was doing science in the specified period of time is more interesting than I thought.Wasn't Special Relativity an attempt to explain why measurements of the speed of light were not affected by the motion of the earth? If so, the math and thought experiments were hypotheses that were designed to explain real observations, and to suggest what evidence future testing should look for.So, I agree that this counts as science, even though it doesn't include testing. The question then is whether or not ID work counts as science, even though it doesn't include testing. I say it is disqualified on the grounds that the observations it is meant to explain aren't real, and in the rare case that they are real, the explanation is post hoc and never meant to proceed to the testing stage.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.