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

ZnU wrote:

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. 

No, but it sure adds some credibility to it, wouldn't you say?

It also counts if e.g. your theory can tell you the
relative amounts of light elements in the universe from 'first principles.' 

Are you saying Darwinism is an axiom?

(That is, without you putting your experimental results 
into the theory first.)


What exactly has Darwinism predicted to date?

Nicolas
.

Relevant Pages