Replies

There is no need to actually observe the process in order for it to be science. Has anyone actually observed the emission of an alpha particle from the nucleus of a U-238 atom? We can't even see the nucleus of the U-238 atom, so how would we know that the alpha particle is emitted from the nucleus? Heck, how do we know the U-238 atom even has a nucleus? In general, all of science is based on indirect observations. All measurements are indirect observations. Even something as simple as measuring the length of an object with a ruler is an indirect observation which relies on all kinds of assumptions (namely that the length of the ruler is constant at all times, that length measurements are transitive, and that the very notion of length is well defined, light travels in straight lines and there are no "lensing" effects occurring in the space between our eyes and the object, etc.) To directly observe the length of an object, you would have to count the atoms along the length of the object. Of course that assumes that there is no inherent uncertainty in the length of an atom (which there is) and that atoms actually exist. What science actually does is formulate a hypothesis based on some observations. This hypothesis then is checked to see if it is consistent with all known observations. This requires that there must be some way that it could possibly be found to be inconsistent with observations. Once it is found to be consistent with all known data, it becomes known as a theory (or a law, depending on what kind of statement it makes). It then makes predictions as to what kinds of things should be observed that haven't yet been observed. Scientists then look for these observations. Usually, there are also predictions about things that should never be observed. If things that have been predicted are found to be wrong, then the theory is modified. At some point, there may be a competing hypothesis offered. This competing hypothesis must also be consistent with known observations. It must also make predictions concerning as yet unobserved phenomena, but either these predictions must be different from the predictions made by the current theory or the new theory must be simpler than the old one. (BTW, simplicity is the reason the heliocentric theory came to be accepted. It is possible to use the old geocentric theory to predict the observed position of all of the planets, it just requires an increasing number of smaller and smaller "epicycles" or circles that the planets move in, in addition to the circle around the earth.) An additional requirement of any new theory is that it should fit in to the framework of other theories (besides the one it attempts to replace) or provide a good reason to believe that an established theory that it contradicts is also false. The modern theory of evolution meets all these requirements, and is therefore a scientific theory. There is no requirement for direct observation of the process of evolution. The earth travelling around the sun is likewise a process. Nobody has ever directly observed this process either. Does that render the heliocentric theory of the solar system unscientific? Creationism or ID do not meet any of these requirements. I still await the day when some ID proponent will tell me what observation would lead them to conclude that ID is not right. What would be convincing evidence that there was never any non-human intelligent being who intervened in the development of the diversity of life that is observed today? In previous posts, I have met this challenge WRT evolution. Do the same WRT ID or creationism and I will no longer object to these ideas being taught as science. Since God is omnipotent, this is impossible for creationism. For ID, all I have ever heard is that we don't know what the capabilities of the designer are so we can't conclude that X is evidence that ID is untrue (where X is any observation at all that you want to bring up.)