Re: Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- From: "MrSpooky" <starshadowe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 12:52:09 -0800
>I can think of several scientific theories that pre-dated direct
>evidence (like the postulation of the neutrino or asteroid-extinction
>of dinosaurs). Once postulated, people went out to look for evidence
>and found it.
>What I'm saying is it seems I.D. could be considered science. Just
>because looking for the evidence is "extremely difficult" shouldn't
>exclude it from being called science.
I suspect that for every unscientific, crackpot idea that eventually
becomes verified, there are ten unscientific, crackpot ideas that are
not.
It's important to remember that it's the EVIDENCE that makes the
science, and without such it's perfectly reasonable to reject an idea
lacking that.
.
- References:
- Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- From: Dwib
- Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- Prev by Date: Re: Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- Next by Date: Re: Irreducible Mousetrap- what say you, Behe?
- Previous by thread: Re: Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- Next by thread: Re: Perhaps Intelligent Design "is" science
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
