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

In news:1123121450.760494.114710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx <dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> ed wrote:
>> 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.
> No, there is the *scientific* definition for a theory, given below.

as defined by?

> Then there is the common definition, which is also known as a guess as
> to what is going on.
>>> 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?
> What do you mean? A theory has to able to predict future results

no, it doesn't. what future results does the big bang theory predict?