Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate


ed wrote:
> dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > ed wrote:
> <snip>
> > > lamarck's theories on the mode of eveolution is pretty much not
> > > accepted at all...
> >
> > And, they weren't scientific theories. They were hypotheses, at best.
> > Darwin's ToE is, however, quite well supported by evidence. Lamarck
> > never was.
>
> accidentally snipped this portion out of my last reply- i believe
> you're talking semantics there. i suppose you'd make the same argument
> about intelligent design as you would about lamarck- that it's
> hypothesis, and not theory. but where do you draw the line?
> intelligent design has been published in peer reviewed journals,
> referred to as an alternative theory of evolution. it's supported by
> some scientists. what needs to happen in your mind for it to make the
> leap from hypothesis to theory?

Below is the definition of a scientific theory:
n 1: 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"; "true
in fact and theory"

Basically, scientists look at facts, and come up with a hypothesis to
explain them. Once the hypothesis has shown explanatory power, and can
be tested, it becomes a theory. ID has neither explanatory power (it
can explain anything, meaning it explains nothing), and it can't be
tested. Indeed, ID is basically "Goddidit" changed to "A higher
intelligence did it". Sorry, but that just isn't science.

I answered your point about published ID in another post.

--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

.

Relevant Pages