Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes Intelligent design?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 40 of 61 (451670)
01-28-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
01-16-2008 2:57 PM


Re: No Merit !
quote:
Until then you have a theory, I have a theory, jar has a theory, and ID has a theory and I am sure there are many more out there.
With this statement you are making at least two serious mistakes.
First, you are describing as theories some things that are not in fact theories (for example, ID).
Secondly, you are presuming that all such "theories" are equally supported. They are not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-16-2008 2:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2135 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 61 (451690)
01-28-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
01-28-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Theories
quote:
Now that I can not find the scientific dictionary could you point me to one.
Try the definitions below. I compiled these, and many others, from a variety of sources. They are closer to the way a scientist would use the terms than a layman:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2008 12:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024