. Some of our friends here at EvC are contending that ID is not science, implying that those who do science with alternative interpretations from secularists do not do science
The hearkens back to what Holmes has been saying: Behe contends that ID is not science, and that if we wanted to call ID 'sciece' we'd have to include astrology.
Rothschild: And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that
definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be,
1 yes." Right?
2 Behe: That s correct.
3 Rothschild: Not, it used to be, right?
4 Behe: Well, that s what I was thinking. I was thinking
5 of astrology when it was first proposed. I m not thinking
6 of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you
7 might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its
8 historical sense.
9 Rothschild: I couldn t be a mind reader either.
10 Behe: I m sorry?
11 Rothschild: I couldn t be a mind reader either, correct?
12 Behe: Yes, yes, but I m sure it would be useful.
13 Rothschild: It would make this exchange go much more quickly.
14 THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.
Panda's Thumb have had some interesting articles about the science of ID that is coming out of DI. IT follows a
press release that they have spent $4,000,000 on ID stuff.
Yet they didn't respond to the
Templeton Foundation's generosity. It seems that the DI simply didn't hand any research proposals in, but they happily accepted the grants for debates and conferences.
Debates and conferences - but no research proposals? Sounds like ID is big on talking and small on doing.
They pretend as if attacking evolution itself somehow constitutes evidence for ID, even going to far as to create labels for anti-evolution arguments (e.g. irreducible complexity, specified complexity) which are then held up as "positive evidence" for ID. But this doesn't fool anyone. The notion that criticisms of evolution automatically count as evidence for ID-creationism is what the courts have called
contrived dualism, and it has been dismissed as having no "scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose".
(
Source)
So the question is: They've spent 4,000,000 dollars towards ID - what have they to show for it?
In summary, and tying it back to the topic at hand. Science has been defined - apparantly by secularists. Science should be secular of course - if science wasn't secular we'd find that astrology would be science.
If that was the case, a secular discipline to get to the truth without referencing a belief system would be developed. It would be as succesful as science is now, but with a different name.
Actually - we already have two different terms. Science is science and ID is philosophy. That isn't to say that ID is inherently wrong, but it isn't science. One day maybe, a rigorous science will be developed from it - but that is not the case yet - as confessed by Behe under oath.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2