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

In article <zHfIe.9647$_%4.8091@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"ed" <news_test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In news:1123121450.760494.114710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx <dfritzin@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> > ed wrote:

> >> 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?

It predicted cosmic microwave background radiation in 1948, which wasn't
experimentally detected until 1965.

But you might be misunderstanding how this works. A theory doesn't
necessarily have to predict things that haven't been experimentally
detected yet. It also counts if e.g. your theory can tell you the
relative amounts of light elements in the universe from 'first
principles.' (That is, without you putting your experimental results
into the theory first.)

--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
.