Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: "ed" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Aug 2005 14:44:39 -0700
dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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:
you confuse "a" definition, with "the" definition of 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"
that's the nice simplified 7th grade definition, but as i stated, it's
not that simple. it's too much based on what's "accepted"- where do
you make the leap?
> 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
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: ed
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: Nasht0n
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: ed
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: dfritzin
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: ed
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- From: dfritzin
- Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- Prev by Date: Re: Mighty Mouse: a step backwards for Apple
- Next by Date: Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- Next by thread: Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|